Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.

As amended, considered.

Sir JOHN BRUNNER: I have been requested to make a short statement. I was Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the Bill upstairs. We made a Special Report to the House stating that in our opinion the company had not given enough to the super-annuitants. I am pleased to say the company since then have offered another £30,000 to the superannuitants, making a total contribution from the company of £78,000 a year. I am happy to say that all parties are now satisfied, including the Committee itself. Only certain small details remain to be considered, so that I hope the House will now pass the Third Reading.

Major BARNETT: On my own behalf and on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and others identified with the Association of Superannuated Railway Clerks, I wish to thank the Private Bill Committee for their recommendation and the board of the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company for their prompt and generous response to that recommendation, and to express the hope that the Bill will soon find a place on the Statute Book.

Mr. REMER: I wish to associate myself with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table
Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill [Lords].

Neath Harbour Bill [Lords].

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords].

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords].

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords].

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords]

(Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with), Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stratford-upon-Avon Extension) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill, Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Croydon Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge Bill),

As amended, considered:

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill
be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, not amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

REPARATION DYESTUFFS.

Mr. BAKER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the method by which reparation dyestuffs are distributed in this country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. WEBB): Reparation dyestuffs are distributed by the British Dyestuffs Corporation as agents, and under the direction of the Board of Trade, which fixes the prices, with the assistance of an informal committee on which the consumers of dyestuffs are represented. Details as to the quantities of dyestuffs received from time to time are immediately notified to the Colour Users' Association, and such quantities are reserved for a period of seven days for actual users; afterwards they are available to all buyers.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Did the Dominions participate in this dyestuffs' distribution?

Mr. WEBB: I am afraid I must ask for notice. Of course, they come in after some seven days anyhow. The question is whether they are notified as users. I doubt it.

COMPANY PROMOTION.

Mr. BAKER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to
make a company formed to take over another company publish in the articles of association an auditor's statement of the value of the assets taken over and the paid-up capital of the old company?

Mr. WEBB: The question of requiring publication of the particulars to which the hon. Member refers has been noted for consideration when the next revision of the Companies Acts is undertaken.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there ought to be an investigation into the working of the Company Acts in view of the revelations of capital lost in certain companies recently under protection of limited liability, and is it not time that we should do something to amend the Company Acts so as to protect the shareholders as well as creditors?

Mr. WEBB: That suggestion has already been considered.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a Departmental Committee?

Mr. WEBB: That has to be considered.

IMPORTED STEEL BARS.

Mr. HANNON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that thousands of tons of steel bars from Belgium are being sent to Birmingham, Darlaston, Cradley and Old Hill districts, while rolling mills in the Black Country are closing down for lack of orders; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. WEBB: I am aware that there has been a considerable importation of steel blooms, slabs and billets from Belgium in recent months, but inasmuch as these require to be re-rolled into plates, sheets and other forms, I am unable to follow the argument that this importation is a substantial cause of unemployment in rolling mills generally.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that thousands of tons of steel joists for building purposes have been sent into this country, thus creating unemployment?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Who ordered this steel that is causing unemployment?

Mr. WEBB: I cannot reply to my hon. Friend's question. With regard to the
question of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville), that must relate to a different article. I have answered the question on the Paper accurately. I cannot answer any other question without notice.

TRADE REVIVAL.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the Returns in his possession indicate the probability of an early revival of trade?

Mr. WEBB: I do not think I can usefully add to the statements on this subject which I made in the course of the discussion of the Board of Trade Estimates on the 19th June, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the interest which the right hon. Gentleman takes in the trade affairs of the country, will he establish a Commission to make further inquiries?

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the Minister of Labour's figures during the last fortnight?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having issued their Final Report, the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage continues to function; if so, whether they will issue a supplementary Report on the conclusion of their work; if not, whether all outstanding claims have been delegated for decision to the Reparation Claims Department; and whether a Report will be issued in due course by that department?

Mr. WEBB: As to the first part of the question, the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action has reported upon all the matters referred to it and has ceased to meet; consequently the second part of the question does not arise. As to the third part, the Reparation Claims Department is dealing with outstanding claims; and with regard to the last part, a further Report in some form or other will certainly be made in due course.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Does not this all go to show how poorly a great British department compares with a great British insurance company in arriving at results?

Mr. WEBB: I am prepared to contradict that suggestion entirely. I consider as a matter of fact that these 78,000 claims have been dealt with, in view of the fact that they had to be examined and decided, with remarkable success.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Have not many years passed?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether claims for suffering and damage from enemy action which have been adjudicated by the Royal Commission in respect of the five millions voted by Parliament are finally closed; or whether they will receive further consideration if and when further sums have been recovered from Germany in respect of reparations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for the Aston Division on the 26th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what articles or materials entering this country are now taxed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and when it is proposed to drop these taxes or to repeal the Act?

Mr. WEBB: The classes of commodities dutiable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act are set out in the Schedule to the Act, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member. The duties are operative until the 19th August, 1926. The commodities of German manufactures dutiable under Part II of the Act, by virtue of Orders of which I am also sending him copies, are fabric gloves and glove fabric, domestic and illuminating glassware, domestic hollow-ware of aluminium and
of enamelled iron or steel, and incandescent gas mantles; these duties and the provisions under which they are levied will cease to be operative on the 19th August of the present year.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, where I suggest the repeal of the Act?

Mr. HANNON: Has not the operation of these duties been of great advantage to manufacturers in key industries?

Mr. WEBB: The last part of the question raises an extremely controversial point on which it would not become me to give a definite opinion in a brief answer. With regard to the end of the question, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks when it is proposed to drop these taxes or to repeal the Act. I have answered that the duties under Part I are operative until 19th August, 1926. There is no intention at present to introduce new legislation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's policy up to now to make a clean sweep of the duties?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue that now.

ENEMY DEBTS (MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL).

Mr. BLACK: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the third Mixed Arbitral Tribunal has been set up; if not, how long it will be before it is established; and whether he can take any additional steps to secure a speedy and satisfactory settlement of all outstanding claims?

Mr. WEBB: As a result of discussions which have taken place during the past week with representatives of the German Government, I am glad to be able to say that it has been agreed to appoint a third division of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. This additional division will be set up as soon as the necessary formalities can be complied with. I may add that opportunity was taken of these meetings to discuss various other matters, with a view to expediting the Clearing Office procedure, and agree-
meets on the subject have been arrived at from which I anticipate very happy results.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does that mean that the German Government has now, at length, undertaken to pay to the Clearing Office the full contributions under its obligations of the Treaty?

Mr. WEBB: I am afraid I can add nothing to this complicated matter without notice.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Will this third mixed arbitral tribunal sit continuously and not intermittently?

Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that no tribunal can sit continuously. I hope it will sit on as many days as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries, and to what amount in money, have been received from British manufacturers for application of the Trade Facilities Act to transactions with Soviet Russia?

Mr. GRAHAM: No applications for guarantees of loans under the Trade Facilities Acts for transactions with Soviet Russia have been made by British manufacturers.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Has any application been made under the Overseas Trade Facilities Act by British manufacturers?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not reply to that question without notice. That is another Department.

ROYAL MINT (COINAGE).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has authorised the Royal Mint to strike silver coins for the Russian Soviet Government, in large bulk, of a fineness of 80 per cent. pure silver to 20 per cent alloy; whether he proposes to continue to strike the British fractional currency of a fineness of only 50 per cent. pure silver; and whether any complaints have been received during the last four years as to this debased currency?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The "poltinnik" coins now being struck by the Royal Mint for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are 900 fine. No change in the present fineness of British token silver is contemplated. In the early stages some complaints were received, but none have been brought to my notice recently.

Sir C. OMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it dignified that the British Government should become the paid handicraftsmen of a foreign Government with which we have not yet been able to enter into any satisfactory relations?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The question of dignity is a matter of opinion.

ANGLO-SOVIET CONFERENCE.

Sir W. de FRECE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any cost is chargeable to the State in connection with the Anglo-Russian Conference in London; and, if so, what is the estimated cost to date?

Mr. PONSONBY: Apart from the expenditure referred to in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 14th of May, and some minor expenditure on entertainment which falls on the Government Hospitality Fund, no extra cost if chargeable to the State up to date in connection with the Anglo-Russian Conference.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what, approximately, is the total cost involved to date?

Mr. PONSONBY: I require notice of that question.

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say that the money devoted to hospitality is received with greater approbation than the hospitality meted out by private Members?

EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. WELLS: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the exports credit scheme has been extended to Russia; and, if so, upon what terms?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 25th
June to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy).

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

S.S. "CLAN MACMILLAN."

Captain Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the loss of the s. s. "Clan Macmillan"; whether it is intended to hold an inquiry; if so, whether at the port of sailing, or in India, with special reference as to the adequacy or otherwise of all the life-saving fittings and equipment on board; and whether he will undertake that the proceedings of any inquiry will be available to any Member desiring to study them?

Mr. WEBB: My attention has been drawn to the case of the "Clan Macmillan," but it is too early yet to say whether an inquiry will be held by the authorities in India or whether it will be necessary to hold one here. If an inquiry is held, all the circumstances relevant to the casualty will be gone into, and the Report of the Court will be published.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS (PROSECUTIONS).

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been undertaken for offences against the Oil in Navigable Waters Act; how many have succeeded; and what steps have been taken by his Department to secure the agreement and conformity of other countries with this Act?

Mr. WEBB: Three prosecutions by local harbour authorities for offences against the Oil in Navigable Waters Act have come to my notice. In two cases fines were imposed, and in the third the summons was dismissed, the defendants paying costs. The Act applies to all ships, British and foreign, within the territorial waters of Great Britain aid Northern Ireland. The regulation of shipping outside territorial waters is a matter for international agreement, and steps are being taken to ascertain whether there is a probability of an international conference being convened by one of the leading maritime Powers.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Irish Free State is coming to an agreement with us upon this very important matter? Have they been approached?

Mr. WEBB: There are two questions involved. One is the question of discharging oil in navigable waters within the three-mile limit, and the other is question about the outside. The Irish Free State has been communicated with.

CANADA (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of exports and imports between Canada and the United States of America in the years 1913 and 1923, respectively; the corresponding figures for Canada and Great

—
From or to United Kingdom.
From or to United States.


1913–14.
1923–24.
1913–14.
1923–24.




Thousand $
Thousand $
Thousand $
Thousand $


Imports for Consumption
…
132,070
153,613
396,369
601,562


Exports—


Canadian Produce
…
215,254
360,094
163,507
431,022


Foreign Peoduce
…
7,068
1,103
13,608
11,068


Total
…
222,322
361,197
177,115
442,090

The figures are exclusive of gold coin and bullion and of silver coin.

With reference to investments in Canada, I find such differences between the figures put forward by different estimators that I am unable to furnish the information desired. There are no figures having official authority.

TURKISH MILITARY MISSION.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is to be the composition of the mission and the object of the visit which is to be made to England in the near future by the Turkish military mission?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): The mission consists of General Naji Pasha, Colonel Kernel Bey, Lieut.-Colonel Reouf Bey, Lieut.-Colonel Djemil Bey, Major Fouad
Britain for the same years; the foreign investments in Canada in 1913 and 1923, and the proportion held in those years by the United States of America and Great Britain, respectively; and whether, in arriving at the computation of British holdings in Canada in 1923, the holdings in the Grand Trunk Railway are taken at par or market value?

Mr. WEBB: The answer contains a number of figures and, with the permission of the hon. Member, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the value of imports into and of exports from the Dominion of Canada from and to the United Kingdom and the United States of America, respectively, during the years ended 31st March, 1914 and 1924:

Bey and Major Chemseddin Bey. Its object is to study the methods of instruction in force at the military schools in various countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

PORTHCAWL CAMP (CLAIM FOR HIRE).

Mr. RHYS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the claim of Mr. David Griffiths, Llwyndewi, Whitland, Carmarthenshire, for payment in respect of a mare hired out for the Territorial camp at Porthcawl last August; whether he is aware that the mare was returned on 27th August suffering from acute strangles, and that Mr. Griffiths refused to take possession of her in that condition; that the mare was eventually returned on 3rd October, and that Mr. Griffiths is claiming 50s. a week from 12th August to 3rd October, being the agreed rate for the
duration of the camp, and £10 damages, as the mare was not available for sale at the end of the summer; whether he is aware that repeated claims for settlement have been made; and whether immediate steps will be taken to investigate and settle the matter?

Major ATTLEE: I regret that no information regarding this case is available at the War Office, but I have asked the hon. Member to inform me which Territorial association is concerned, and, on hearing from him, I will make inquiries and communicate with him further.

TRAINING.

Major YERBURGH: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that War Office Regulations at present provide that a Territorial unit must undergo its training at its war station on two out of every three successive years, and that in the numerous cases where the war station is the same as the peace station this Regulation means that such Territorial units in effect undergo their annual training in the locality where the members of such units reside the remainder of the year; and whether, in view of the fact that service in the Territorial Force in most instances implies the sacrifice of a man's annual holiday, he will consider meeting the wishes of such units and encourage recruiting for the Territorial Force by altering the Regulations so as to give such units the opportunity of undergoing their training away from their home station, at any rate, two years out of three instead of only one as at present?

Major ATTLEE: The provision referred to applies only to Coast Defence Units of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. It is essential that the personnel of these units should be familiar with the armament and lay-out of the defences to which they are allotted in war, and it is only by frequently carrying out their annual training on the spot that the necessary familiarity can be acquired and retained.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITS (ENLISTMENT AGE).

Mr. MURRAY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that boys of 17 years of age are being retained in
the Army against their parents' wishes, and in defiance of the Regulation which states that a youth on enlistment must be 18 years of age, and that one boy of 17 years and six months, whose parents made unavailing efforts to have him released from the Army, has now been in prison for desertion; and if he will give instructions that no boy under 18 is to be retained without the consent of his parents or guardians?

Major ATTLEE: I have no information as to the particular case mentioned, but I am aware that recruits who have enlisted as men, and who are subsequently found to be between 17 and 18 years of age, are normally, and in accordance with the Reguations, held to serve. The point has been frequently raised in the House, and I can hold out no prospect that the present rule will be varied.

ROYAL CHELSEA HOSPITAL (PENSIONS APPLICATIONS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War if complaints have reached him as to the slowness with which applications for pensions are dealt with by the Royal Chelsea Hospital authorities; whether he is satisfied that the existing machinery is adequate for the purpose; and what is the direct control over such machinery exercised by his Department?

Major ATTLEE: No complaints have reached me, and I have no reason to think that the existing arrangements for expediting business are inadequate. The working of the office arrangements is controlled by the Commissioners, and not directly by the Army Council, but the War Office is largely represented on the Board. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any case in which he thinks there has been undue delay, I will inquire into it, and will communicate with him further.

Sir W. de FRECE: Will the hon. Member let us know exactly what type of pensioners are actually dealt with by the Chelsea authorities, as there is public misconception on the point?

Major ATTLEE: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to answer him.

DISCHARGE APPLICATIONS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of appli-
cations made since the beginning of the year for the release of men serving in the Army; how many such applications have been granted; what is the loss to the State in respect to the partial training of such men; whether the releases have been made in all cases on the understanding that these men have work to go to; and why, in view of the large measure of existing unemployment, such work cannot be undertaken by ex-service men, who are often dependent on Poor Law assistance?

Major ATTLEE: Excluding cases of purchase of discharge, the number of free discharges granted from 1st January to 31st May, 1924, is 420. I am not in a position to state the number of rejected applications. Practically all these men were discharged on compassionate grounds, that is to say, because the soldier was required at home as a family wage-earner. A guarantee of employment is necessary in all cases. As the Army is open to take an extra recruit in place of each man discharged, the effect of these releases on the labour market should not be appreciable, and, in any case, the retention of the man in the Army in order to enable an ex-service man to do his work in civil life would not benefit his family. The loss to the State in respect of the partial training of these men would depend on the length of their service and other considerations, but I have no data on which to frame an estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

INTER-ALLIED MILITARY COMMITTEE.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War how often the Inter-Allied Military Committee at Versailles met during the month of May; and what questions were dealt with by it or referred to it?

Major ATTLEE: The Committee met in plenary session twice in May and dealt with such matters as the State factories in Austria and Hungary, the working of the military control in those countries, the organisation of the Bulgarian gendarmerie and the enrolment of cadet officers at the Military Academy at Sofia. I would, however, add that it is impossible to measure the volume of work of the Committee by the number of sessions held. Most of its work lies in the preliminary
study of the questions to be brought before it in session.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not this the class of work that is being carried out by the Ambassadors' Conference, and is it necessary to keep on this Committee?

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Does the hon. Member think that we derive any benefit by the maintenance of this body, which is not under our own General Staff nor under the French General Staff, but under the orders of Marshal Foch, whose views on military questions are well known?

Major ATTLEE: As these questions raise a matter of policy, I cannot answer.

TREATY OF LAUSANNE.

Mr. HUGH O'NEILL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the delay on the part of His Majesty's Government in ratifying the Treaty of Lausanne?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that this Treaty cannot be ratified until the Free State Government has notified its adherence to it?

Mr. PONSONBY: Until all the Dominions have ratified it, the Treaty cannot be fully ratified.

Captain EDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the delay is open to very mischievous misconstruction?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is there any Dominion except the Free State which has not ratified?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, there is no other.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EXPERIMENTAL FARM (FIFE).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 28.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has now considered the request from the Fife Education. Authority for a grant towards their
scheme for acquiring an experimental farm; if so, is there any fund available from which a grant may be made; and what amount, if any, does he propose granting to assist the aforesaid authority?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): The request by the Fife Education Authority has been under my consideration, but at present I have no funds available. I may add that I expect to receive some guidance in regard to this matter from the Report of the Committee on Agricultural Education and Research in Scotland, which I expect to receive shortly.

POOR LITIGANTS.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 29.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is prepared to introduce legislation on the same lines as the Poor Litigants (Scotland) Bill, which was passed by this House in 1920, and which was not returned from another place?

Mr. ADAMSON: The Bill to which my hon. Friend refers deals with a matter which is regulated by Standing Order of the House of Lords, made under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876. When the Bill was considered in another place, the view taken was that, if the matter was to be dealt with at all, it ought to be by amendment of the Standing Order and not by Bill. In these circumstances, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the re-introduction of the Bill.

FISHING INDUSTRY (LOANS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 31.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many fishermen have applied for the Government loan; how many have been approved; and how many nets have been really ordered or supplied?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of nets issued to date under the scheme for the assistance of Scottish fishermen, the number of men who have availed themselves of the scheme, and the extent of the liability incurred by the Government?

Mr. ADAMSON: I propose to answer this question together with that put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. During the short time that has elapsed since the scheme was adopted, nine applications for loans have been
received at the head office of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and eight of these have been approved. I anticipate that further applications will be made in increasing numbers when the fishermen begin to make their preparations for the autumn fishing.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the Secretary for Scotland see his way to let these fishermen have their loans free of interest, instead of charging 5 per cent?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has my right hon. Friend taken steps to make the provisions of these loans known to the fishermen in the various ports?

Mr. ADAMSON: Steps have been taken to make the provisions of the loans known to the fishermen in the various ports. I am not in a position to carry out the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).

Sir F. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the amount of the loans applied for?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How is it that in this House Irishmen can get a loan of money, free of interest, for building houses when they required them? How is it that my fellow-countrymen cannot get a loan of money free in order to purchase their gear and to carry on their usual occupation?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that now.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT (1906).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 33.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of prosecutions sanctioned by the Board of Agriculture under Section 6 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, in Scotland during 1923?

Mr. ADAMSON: No application for the Board's consent to a prosecution under Section 6 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, was received or dealt with by them during 1923.

LAND COURT (REPORT).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 34.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Report of the Land Court for 1923 will be available for Members before the Debate on the Scottish Estimates on Thursday?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that the Report is now ready for the printers, but cannot be issued by Thursday.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Why has this delay occurred, seeing how necessary it is that the Report should be in the hands of Members before the Debate?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that no delay has taken place, but that the matter has been expedited as much as possible.

DEPUTY CLERK REGISTER.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 35.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what is the official name of the new statutory officer to whom the duties previously performed by the Deputy Clerk Register have been assigned; who is the person now performing these duties; and whose duty it is to reply to communications addressed to the Deputy Clerk Register?

Mr. ADAMSON: The official title of the new statutory officer to whom, as I stated on Tuesday last, most of the duties performed by Sir James Patten MacDougall and his predecessor have been assigned is the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Scotland. The person who now holds that office and performs its duties is Dr. J. C. Dunlop. Any communication addressed to the Deputy Clerk Register at the present time would fall to be answered by the head of the Department to which its contents related, for example, by the Deputy Keeper of the Records if it concerned the work of the Record Office. If necessity arose, any such communication would be referred to the Secretary for Scotland as the Minister to whom the Deputy Clerk Register was responsible.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that questions addressed to the Deputy Clerk Register do not receive any acknowledgment?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am unaware of any communications received which have been treated in this way. Communications are sent to the Scottish Office, and I reply to them.

PUBLIC SCHOOL, ABERLADY.

Mr. SPENCE: 36.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the Aberlady public school buildings are in an unsatisfactory condition; that after
repeated deductions from the Government grants the Aberlady School Board gave an undertaking that plans for a new school would be submitted within six months of the conclusion of the War and that work would be commenced within one year of the conclusion of the War; that in 1918 the East Lothian education authority took over all the liabilities of the school boards; and that the education authority has done nothing to fulfil its obligations towards the school; and what steps are being taken by the Department to ensure that the undertaking given by the school board is to be carried out?

Mr. ADAMSON: The facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. The education authority have been reminded of the condition of the premises, and I fully expect that they will take steps to fulfil their obligations at an early date without the necessity of further action by the Department.

PIERS (WESTERN ISLES).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 37.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now given further consideration to the question of Petersport Pier, Benbecula, in the Western Isles; and, in view of the recent aggravation of conditions in these islands by the closure of Lochboisdale Pier, whether he is now prepared to take steps to provide the necessary lights?

Mr. ADAMSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It does not appear that the Board of Agriculture, or any of the Departments for which I am responsible, would have statutory power to provide the lights which would apparently be necessary as a minimum for the purpose suggested. Moreover, apart from that difficulty it is not clear from my present information that the provision of those lights by any authority or person would in itself be a sufficient inducement for shipping companies to undertake to give new services, or more frequent services, than exist at present.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 38.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the hardship and loss sustained by the 5,000 people in the Point district of the island of Lewis owing to the lack of a pier and breakwater; and, in view of the fact that this population is dependent on the fishing industry, that such a pier and breakwater is essential to the develop-
ment of their staple industry, and also, in view of the small expenditure on relief works in that district, whether he is prepared to make a grant towards this project?

Mr. ADAMSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 27th March, and in which I indicated the reasons why the Board of Agriculture could not offer assistance in this case. I regret that I am unable at the present time to add to that answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could not this be done if it were in Iraq?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Or in Egypt?

ST. KILDA PIER.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 39.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the dock constructed at St. Kilda over 20 years ago is now, as the result of heavy seas, in such a state of disrepair, and so filled up with boulders, as to render it useless for the purpose for which it was intended; and, in view of the hardships which the inhabitants of the island have to encounter, what steps he proposes to take in order to put the dock into a serviceable condition?

Mr. ADAMSON: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland gave a small grant two years ago for the repair of the pier at St. Kilda, which is presumably the work to which the hon. Member refers. No further representations with regard to the condition of this work have been received. If information on the subject is sent to the Board of Agriculture it will be considered.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: As these people live so far away that they have only limited means of sending information, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries at St. Kilda?

Mr. ADAMSON: If the hon. Member who, I understand, represents St. Kilda, has any information, perhaps he will pass it on.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps once again to go on the fishery cruiser "Minna"?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that if the information is sent on to him he will put his ideas into operation?

Mr. ADAMSON: I think that the House will bear me out when I say that the Secretary for Scotland always does that.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SHALE MINES.

Mr. CLARKE: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he proposes to include the Scottish shale industry in the Bill shortly to be introduced amending the present Coal Mines Seven Hours Act; and, if not, will he say what are his intentions with regard to their being included at a future date?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Bill recently introduced by me to explain (not to amend) one Subsection of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908. Both apply to shale mines as well as to coal mines. But the Bill is merely explanatory, and no alteration of the length of the normal working day, as fixed for shale mines by the Act of 1908 and for coal mines by the amending Act of 1919, could possibly be included within its scope.

UNITED ANTHRACITE COLLIERIES.

Mr. HARDIE: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the prospectus of the United Anthracite Collieries shows an output of 600,000 tons of anthracite and an estimate of £250,000 profits, which is equal to 8s. per ton; and whether he will include such published profits when dealing with the miners' wage?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have read this prospectus. I gather that the output expected by the promoters is larger than 600,000 tons per annum, and that the estimated profits do not relate solely to the business of coal mining. But, however this may be, I have no responsibility for the figures upon which the miners' wages are determined. The calculations for this purpose are made by the independent accountants appointed by the mineowners and the miners respectively in each district, and the figures to be taken into account are settled by them in accordance with the principles laid down under the National Agreement.

Mr. HARDIE: Am I to understand that the principle which governs the Depart-
ment is that it is not the profits which the colliery owner makes which is to decide the wages, and that profits have no relation to wages? If the profits of a colliery are to have no relation to wages, what is to be the basis on which wages are to be settled?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid that my hon. Friend did not listen very carefully to my answer, in which I pointed out that the Department has nothing to do with the miners' wage agreement.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a sad fact that the high hopes held out in prospectuses are not always borne out in the performance?

WATER DANGER (No. 23 REDDING PIT).

Mr. HARDIE: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to report upon the water danger in No. 23 Redding Pit?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have had special inquiry made into this matter. I find that the Redding Ball coal workings are not under the old Meadowbank workings, as my hon. Friend stated in his question on the 18th June. They are at present 500 feet from the fault that separates the two collieries. The water in Meadowbank is to be lowered, and, until this is done, no workings from Redding will be allowed to approach within 120 feet of the fault. What my hon. Friend described as a heavy flow of water from the coal face is stated by the inspector to be a trickle amounting to about a pint a minute, which cannot possibly come from the Meadowbank workings. I am advised that in these circumstances there is no such danger, as my hon. Friend fears; nor can I find that any alarm has been felt by the men. The Stirlingshire Miners' Union inform me that they have no knowledge of any complaint by them on the subject. The manager has invited the men to appoint two of their number to make an inspection under Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that before the recent disaster the miners, we were informed, had no apprehension; and if there is only a trickle of water, why is a thousand gallon power pump being used for a pint of water? Will any engineers give a guarantee that, no matter where the water is lying in reference to where the miners are working, the strata between
them and the water, over which they have no control, will not break, and that the men may not be flooded at any time?

WAGES DISPUTE (BRISTOL).

Mr. AYLES: 57.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the mineowners in the Bristol district have refused to accept the national agreement entered into between the mineowners of Great Britain and the Miners' Federation; and, seeing that such action is leading to grave industrial unrest and dislocation, what steps is he prepared to take to bring the Bristol mineowners into line with those in other parts of the country?

Mr. SHINWELL: A meeting has been arranged for Thursday next between representatives of the Mining Association, the Miners' Federation and the mineowners and miners in the Bristol district to consider the situation in that coalfield. I hope that this meeting may be able to dispose of the question.

UNEMPLOYMENT (MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. BARKER: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the condition of unemployment among the miners in the area of Blaina, Monmouthshire, and that four mines have been closed since 1921; has he any prospects of getting these collieries re-opened; and can he give any information on the present situation?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am aware of the position at Blaina. I regret to say that there appears to be little prospect of any of these collieries being re-opened; most of the seams formerly worked from them are, I understand, now being worked from other pits. Negotiations are, however, in progress for the further development of another seam in the neighbourhood, but are not yet completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister who are the representatives of His Majesty's Government on the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations this year; and what instructions have been given to the British representative with regard to the recruiting of native troops
in mandated areas and the control of the liquor traffic?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): Sir F. Lugard is a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission and Mr. Ormsby-Gore, M.P., will be present as representing His Majesty's Government when the Reports from British Mandated Territories are under consideration. It has been decided that natives of British mandated territories are not to be recruited for service outside the territories, while within them they may only be recruited for police or local defence. As regards the liquor traffic, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. L. Jones) on the 7th May. The accredited British representative has been in close touch with the Colonial Office and is fully aware of the position with regard to these subjects.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: Do those instructions include the surrender of the claim by the late Government of the British right to accept in all forces in British territories volunteers from mandated territory?

Mr. THOMAS: I would like to have notice of that question.

MOROCCO AND RIFIAN REPUBLIC.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the representatives of His Majesty's Government in Morocco have been approached by accredited representatives of the Rifian Republic, with a view to securing the good offices of His Majesty's Government in bringing before the League of Nations the state of war which exists between Governments friendly to Great Britain, in order that further bloodshed may be averted; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government finds it impossible to intervene in this matter or to receive communications which make it party to what is going on.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it a fact or not that representations have been made to His Majesty's Government that they should intervene to prevent bloodshed?

Mr. PONSONBY: I require notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the War the Rifians were very good Allies of ours in the Mediterranean? Cannot he reconsider the proposal and exercise our good offices to bring about peace?

HOUSE OF COMMONS (STATUES).

Mr. FOOT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that no statue of either Sir John Eliot or John Pym has been erected within the precinets of the House; and whether, having regard to the eminence of these two statesmen and their outstanding contribution in the struggle for the liberties of Parliament, he will take the steps necessary to commemorate their services by the erection of worthy memorials in some prominent position?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, the Government cannot see their way to adopt the hon. Member's proposal, but they would be prepared to consider any other suggestions that might be made to perpetuate the memory of these statesmen.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the erection of statues to Lord Strafford and Archbishop Laud?

Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the House what other course can be taken, so that there may be some proper commemoration of the services of one who is described, I think, as "the greatest confessor in the cause of liberty in those times"?

Mr. DICKSON: If the right hon. Gentleman is taking into consideration a matter of this character, will he be prepared to consider the erection of statues to Muir, of Huntershill; Baird and Hardie, the Stirling Martyrs; John Ball, Wat Tyler, and others?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost of the new Government proposals, in respect of old age pensions,
if the age limit were lowered from 70 to 65; and whether the abolition of the thrift penalty will cause any diminution in the cost of the machinery of investigation?

Mr. SNOWDEN: So far as can be estimated, in the absence of knowledge as to the operation of the means limit in the case of persons between the ages of 65 and 70, the cost of pensions, if the age limit were reduced to 65 and if the new proposal as to means were applied, would be £42,000,000 against the present expenditure of £24,000,000; the cost would grow continuously with the increase of the aged population, and in 20 years' time would be over £70,000,000. It is not anticipated that the present proposals will on balance have any substantial effect on the cost of administration.

INCOME TAX (REGIMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS).

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that regimental benevolent associations are being served with notices that they are liable to Income Tax on their incomes; whether he can state the reasons on which this notification is based; and why this new policy is now for the first time being introduced?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of the existence of the new policy to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind any case in which he considers that Income Tax is being wrongly charged and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will gladly have the matter investigated and will communicate the result to him in due course.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: Several of these aid societies already have received letters saying that they will not receive the rebate on Income Tax this year because they do not come under the heading of charitable institutions. At the same time, is it not a fact that the Public Trustee has refused to be trustee to these various aid societies because they are exclusively charitable institutions, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Public Trustee knows his own business?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman in my main reply to submit to me particulars of cases, and I promised in that event to give them consideration.

GOVERNMENT TIMBER (SALE).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in February, 1920, the Government sold its entire stock of foreign soft woods to the Timber Trade Federation; if he can say how much money was received on the sale and what was the cost of the wood so sold; and whether prices rose or fell after the sale?

Mr. WEBB: I have been asked to reply. The stock of foreign soft woods held by the Timber Disposal Department was sold in February, 1920, to Associated Importers, Limited, a company in which importers of foreign timber were largely represented. The amount ultimately recovered from the sale was approximately £4,000,000; the estimated cost which was incurred during the years 1917–19 was about £5,800,000. Prices fell considerably during 1920 and there was a partial recovery in 1922.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hen. Gentleman aware that the company to which he has referred lost the whole of its share capital in this transaction?

Mr. WEBB: I believe that the company found the venture not very profitable.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that the reason why this company is so wealthy?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BIRMINGHAM AND BRISTOL CHANNEL (WATERWAY).

Mr. AYLES: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the continued unemployment of large numbers of people and the need for additional transport facilities between the Midlands and the Bristol Channel, he has any statement to make as to the progress of the negotiations between the city of Birmingham and other local authorities with regard to the development of the canal system between Birmingham and Sharpness; and whether he can usefully inter-
vene in any way, either by assistance at conferences between the bodies concerned or by the sympathetic consideration of grants, to facilitate the promotion of this addition to our national transport system?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I am in touch with the local authorities interested in the improvement of the waterway between Birmingham and the Bristol Channel and recently discussed the scheme with their representatives. I asked the Birmingham Corporation for further information on certain aspects of the proposals, some of which affect other local authorities, and I desire to give any assistance I can in connection with the consideration of this project.

Mr. AYLES: Does the hon. Gentleman know that there is grave need for expediting the decision of the authorities in this matter, owing to the fact that there is a heavy handicap on goods coming from the Midlands to the Bristol Channel, due to the heavy railway freights?

Colonel ASHLEY: Has the City of Bristol offered to put up any money for this purpose?

Mr. GOSLING: As a matter of fact, the local authorities are co-operating, and the matter is going on very well. I am awaiting further information from Birmingham.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I have an answer to my question? Has the City of Bristol offered to put up any money—or has the City of Birmingham done so?

Mr. GOSLING: Let me put it another way. The money has not yet been refused.

Mr. AYLES: Does the Minister know of any sums which have been put up by any of the authorities concerned?

CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Mr. BLACK: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to prevent accidents, he will secure that every cyclist shall carry either a rear light or an efficient reflector?

Mr. GOSLING: The proposal would require legislation. Should it be decided to introduce a Bill dealing with lights on road vehicles, the points referred to by the hon. Member shall receive full consideration.

Mr. BLACK: Has the Minister obtained opinions from benches of magistrates and county councils, to find out how strong is the feeling in favour of this proposal?

Viscount WOLMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such a proposal is bound to be resisted by cyclists throughout the country?

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Approximately, how many petitions has the Minister received in favour of legislation such as is indicated in the question?

BY-PASS ROADS (ELTHAM TO WELLING).

Mr. MILLS: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that by-pass roads from Eltham to Welling, which were partially completed two years ago, are still uncompleted; and will be expedite their completion?

Mr. GOSLING: The completion of the Shooters Hill By-Pass and the South Circular Road, which will connect Eltham to Welling, has been delayed by the impossibility of securing vacant possession of buildings obstructing the line of road. Some progress has already been made in clearing the line, and it is hoped that means are now in sight for overcoming the housing difficulty, which is the principal obstacle to progress.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY(LONDON SERVICES)

Mr. MILLS: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the bad service now operating between Bexley, Heath and Charing Cross, involving two changes in a journey of 10 miles; and whether he will make representations to the Southern Railway Company of the great need for improvement by checking London destination in the daily bookings and as a result, convey passengers with a minimum of change and delay?

Mr. GOSLING: My attention has not previously been called to this matter. I am making inquiries, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

TRAINS (OVERCROWDING).

Mr. HOFFMAN: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the public dissatisfaction at the overcrowding of trains, he will appoint a Committee to make inquiries with a view to providing a remedy for this state of things?

Mr. GOSLING: The general question of overcrowding on trains is not one that could usefully be investigated by a Committee. I would remind my hon. Friend that it is open to the local authorities and representative bodies to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for orders requiring railway companies to afford reasonable services and facilities.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate that decision to the local authorities; and is he aware, so great is the grievance upon this question, that if he can do anything the whole travelling British public will rise up and call him blessed?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in trains running in the north of England sometimes as many as from 50 to 100 people have to stand throughout long jouurneys?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that travellers from London to Glasgow, for instance, are not necessarily residents of London or of other places served by the train and, therefore, the local authorities have nothing to do with them; and will he make inquiries into the case of a train which recently carried Sabbath School delegates from London to Glasgow which was grossly overcrowded and was an insult to the travelling public.

Mr. GOSLING: If the feeling is as described by the hon. Member for South Eastern Essex (Mr. Hoffman) and if the public are outraged, then they will know that the remedy is either by organisation or through the local authorities, to go to the tribunual I have mentioned.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I give notice that I intend to raise this question on the first available opportunity.

MOTOR VEHICLES, TAXATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. BLACK: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any further information as to the proposals to transfer the incidence of motor taxation from horse-power to petrol or other motor spirit?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport when the Report on the taxation of motor vehicles will be issued?

Viscount CURZON: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee on the Taxation of Motor Vehicles has as yet reported; and, if so, what is the nature of its Report and do the Government intend to adopt its recommendations?

Mr. GOSLING: The Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, dealing with the existing system of motor taxation, has been presented to me. It is being printed as expeditiously as possible and will be available shortly. The report covers several points, but on the main question of a duty on motor spirit seven members are against, two in favour, the remaining member has presented a separate memorandum. The five members who sign the main Report, while recommending certain modifications of the existing system of taxation, arrive at the following general conclusion:
It is in these circumstances that we have again reluctantly come to the conclusion, that no method of administering a motor spirit duty can be contrived which would not inflict grace inconvenience and additional expense upon considerable numbers of consumers of motor spirit (and of some kerosenes) used for purposes other than the propulsion of road vehicles, or which could be relied upon to yield a certain revenue at a reasonable cost.
Two other members of the Committee concur with the main Report, so far as it concerns the Motor Spirit Duty, though they consider that the proceedings of the Committee have established an even stronger case against it than that set out in the main Report.

Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the important statement made by the Minister of Transport, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the House will have some opportunity of discussing this important Report before the Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I must have time to consider the matter. This is the first I have heard of it.

Viscount CURZON: Does the Minister of Transport consider that the results of this Committee justify its three years' work?

Mr. GOSLING: I have only been responsible for the Committee for a very
short time. They have kept their promise made to me and have delivered the Report in June.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Could not the hon. Gentleman bring in some of these recommendations during the Autumn Session, so that they could be enforced on 1st January, 1925, instead of waiting until January, 1926?

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman publish this Report as soon as possible?

Mr. GOSLING: I am having it printed for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

GREAT NORTHERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY, DENMARK (LICENCES).

Mr. BAKER: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will place a copy of the licence granted to the Great Northern Telegraph Company of Denmark upon the Table of the House, in order that the House may be acquainted with its terms?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Vernon Hartshorn): I do not think that these licences, which are on the point of expiry, are of sufficient general interest to warrant their being laid before Parliament.

Mr. BAKER: Having regard to the precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, will he agree that all such licences should become public property so that the decisions of his Department may be scrutinised?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The question is not with reference to all similar licences, but with reference to these particular licences, and I have said in relation to them that they expire in the course of the next few months.

WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of British Broadcasting Company licences to date held by licensees in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The total number of wireless receiving licences on the 31st May in England and Wales was approximately 702,000, and in Scotland 98,000. Separate figures for Wales are not available.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon Gentleman noticed a statement in the leading paper, to which there is doubtless an answer, that in Edinburgh dealers have sold 5,000 more sets than there are licencess?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have not seen that statement.

STIRLING POST OFFICE (J. CHRISTIE).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of James Christie, a soldier who enlisted in February, 1916, and was discharged as permanently disabled by a gunshot wound in the right arm; if he is aware that this man has been employed for almost three years at Stirling post office, and that he has now been informed that he must resign in order to make way for an able-bodied ex-professional soldier; and if he can give the Regulation under which it is proposed to discharge disabled men from post office posts?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Mr. James Christie has been employed intermittently at Stirling since November, 1921, in a purely temporary capacity. Such employment gives no claim to permanent employment, for which each man must register separately. Mr. Christie is, however, still employed, and he has not been informed that he must resign to make way for an able bodied ex-regular soldier. Mr. Christie will be considered for permanent employment in his proper turn.

PUDSEY (TELEPHONE DIRECTORY).

Sir FRANCIS WATSON: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to many of the inhabitants of the Borough of Pudsey arising from the fact that the name of the borough does not appear in the Telephone Directory, all the subscribers' names appearing under the Stanningly exchange, which is a district within the City of Leeds and has no corporate existence; and will he, in view of the fact that the new exchange about to be opened is within the Borough of Pudsey, consider the desirability of changing the name of the Stanningly exchange to the Pudsey exchange?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Telephone subscribers in Pudsey have been connected for more than 30 years with the Stanningly exchange without, so far as I am aware, any complaint having arisen; and, in view of the inconvenience to existing subscribers which an alteration in the name of an exchange occasions, I do not think it advisable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Sir F. WATSON: In view of the importance of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Yes, I shall be very pleased to receive a deputation.

POST OFFICES (CLASSIFICATION).

Mr. WHITE: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can now give the names of those post offices which have been recommended for higher classification?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The answer is in the negative. The matter is still the subject of discussion with the staff associations.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION STAMP.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the design of the British Empire Exhibition postage stamp was selected as the result of competition; and whether he can give the name of the successful artist?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, the successful artist was Mr. Harold Nelson.

Mr. WILSON: Might I further ask whether the design for this stamp is considered really artistic, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of any postal authority which has issued a stamp that is more ugly than this one?

IMPERIAL WIRELESS SERVICES (COMMITTEE).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 80.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the names of the members of the Departmental Committee which is considering the nationalisation, under the Post Office, of wireless telegraphy and foreign cables; whether the original number of members has been increased; if so, for what reason; whether the original terms of reference have been extended; and whether broad-
casting comes within the scope of such reference?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The Committee on the organisation of the Imperial Wireless Services is constituted as follows:

Sir Robert Donald, G.B.E., LL.D. (Chairman).
Sir Arthur Balfour, K.B.E.
Sir G. L. Barstow, K.C.B.
Mr. J. W. Bowen.
Sir Henry Lambert, K.C.M.G., C.B.
Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Mond, Bart.
Sir G. E. P. Murray, K.C.B.
Sir Edwin Stockton.
Sir Campbell Stuart, K.B.E.

Four additional members have been added to the original number, because I considered that their inclusion would be of service to the Committee. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

FLUSHING TANKS.

Mr. AYLES: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the great amount of unemployment in the metal trades, and the need for safeguarding the health of the public, he can see his way to introduce legislation to amend the law so that local authorities may be in a position to compel all landlords to supply flushing tanks to houses owned by them where there is already water carriage provided for sanitary conveniences without any part of the cost for the same falling on the local authority?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot introduce legislation for this purpose during the present Session.

BRICKS (MANUFACTURE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether municipal authorities who find themselves unable to obtain bricks at a reasonable price and in a reasonable time are entitled to establish and work their own brickmaking yards; and if there is any objection on his part to such authorities importing bricks from France or elsewhere in order to build houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has no intention of interfering with the free importation of building materials.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the first part of my question, as to whether they can start brickworks if they wish to do so?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That, I think, requires special powers, which the local authorities do not possess.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, that wherever a corporation or city council start a brickworks for use and not for sale outside, but purely for the use and development of their own schemes, they have full liberty to start municipal brickworks?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the trouble about bricks is a new development since the introduction of the Housing Bill?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is very important, and I have a question on the Paper. Did I understand that they are allowed to start these brickworks?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No local authority has power to start municipal services of all kinds without special powers, but where a local authority possesses land and for its own purposes produces bricks, for its own schemes, that, I think, it can do without special powers.

Mr. FERGUSON: Glasgow started brickworks, and it was a big failure there.

HOUSING ACT, 1923.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the impossibility of understanding the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill without reference to the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, owing to so many of its Clauses making direct reference to the Act, he will cause copies of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, to be either circulated to Members, or to be available on application at the Vote Office?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that arrangements have been made whereby hon. Members may obtain a copy of the Act upon application being made at the Vote Office.

Major COLFOX: Would not the simpler plan be to eliminate the references and redraft the Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.

CEYLON (TAVERNS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the native population of Ceylon, although desiring to take local option polls in regard to the Udugama and Ratoto taverns, have been refused permission by the Government agent; whether he is aware that these taverns are largely used by Indian coolies; and why it has been considered necessary to provide for their obtaining toddy when it is not considered necessary for the Cingalese?

Mr. THOMAS: I have received no official report about this matter, but it appears to have been fully discussed in the Legislative Council of Ceylon in August last. Under the rules made by the Governor and conformed by the Legislative Council the Government agent had no power to take local option polls in regard to any tavern mainly serving a population of Indian coolies.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state what action the Government propose to take in consequence of the decision of the Committee on the Amendment which was carried against them in the discussion on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill yesterday?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have not much to add to what I said on the spur of the moment last night. The Government are now considering the form of the proposal which they will make in the matter on the Report stage of the Bill, and they hope to be able to submit a form of words which will embody what undoubtedly was the desire of the members of the Committee who took part in the Debate and heard the Debate, namely, to give relief in regard to Entertainments Duty to
entertainments the proceeds of which are devoted to charitable purposes, and at the same time to safeguard the Revenue against abuse.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House how many Orders the Government intend to take to-night in the event of the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, being carried?

Mr. CLYNES: It is intended to take the Orders on the Paper from the first to No. 8 inclusive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. J. JONES: No grouse shooting for you this time!

Mr. CLYNES: As I stated previously, and as, I think, experience will disclose, most of these Orders are of a Departmental character and non-controversial. Should these Orders be concluded before Eleven o'clock, the Government would not ask the House to sit after No. 8. To that, I might add that I understand it is the desire on Thursday, in reference to Scottish Estimates, to take the following Estimates, namely, Board of Agriculture, Scotland; Public Education, Scotland; Scottish Board of Health; and Register House, Edinburgh.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will those Votes be taken in that order?

Mr. CLYNES:: Yes.

Ordered,
That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

RATING

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the rating of the owners and lessees of unoccupied houses, and for purposes connected therewith.
May I say that this little Bill is my first ewe lamb? It is quite a simple and innocent one, and I hope that its simplicity and its innocence will commend it to the House, and that its usefulness
will enable it to be passed. I think everybody will agree that at a time like the present, when there are so many people seeking housing accommodation, it is not desirable that houses, in any considerable number at any rate, should be allowed to remain idle for any considerable period, and yet everybody knows that in almost every district in the country there are larger or smaller numbers of houses remaining idle, some of them for very long periods of time. The general purpose of keeping these houses unoccupied is, of course, that they are offered for sale, and an attempt is being made to obtain a price for them that the people desirous of purchasing are not able or willing to pay. This morning I made inquiries in the borough that I represent, and in which I live, and I was informed that at the present time there are 62 houses unoccupied, and that the number at Present is rather lower than the average for a considerable time past. The annual amount that the Council is losing in rates at present is £1,219 2s. 6d., and I know that nearly all the unoccupied houses are of a type that, were they offered at a rent about the same as that of houses of a similar character in the district, they would be occupied by people who are now seeking houses.
I made inquiries as to the number of applications there are in our own town hall by people who are seeking housing accommodation, and I found that the number at the end of June was 3,716. Those were people who have applied to the local council for housing accommodation. Amongst that number there are 256 families who are at present occupying one room. Some of those families consist of father, mother and six children, that is, eight people occupying one room. Of course, that is the exception, but all of them are average families, and, probably, it would be found that amongst the 256 families, most of them consist of perhaps four or more people. In addition, 326 families who have made application for housing accommodation occupy two rooms, and I had a letter myself during the last three or four days, asking me if anything could be done for a family consisting of father, mother and three children, who are living at the present time in a small scullery at the back of a kitchen, where there is a sink and a copper
in the corner. Five people are at present living in that scullery. Conditions like that—and they can be multiplied in a great number of districts—ought to make it clear to anybody that it is criminal to keep large numbers of houses unoccupied, and, at the same time, allow them to be free from the ordinary rates which have to be paid by people for houses which are occupied.
I can remember, a few years ago, when a strong campaign was carried on by some of our morning newspapers in London, the public was informed that if Socialism came into power, the consequence would be that wives and husbands would be separated from their children, and family life would be entirely destroyed. Yet I see to-day in my own constituency—and similar conditions prevail in many parts of the country—the husband living in one part of the town, the wife in another part, and the children probably scattered in several homes in and out of the district. This state of affairs is growing, and is very serious at the present time, and every decent man and woman ought to do everything possible to remedy it. We have considerable power in that direction to compel these people who hold up houses to allow those houses to be occupied by people living under the horrible conditions in which they are living at the present time. I hope, therefore, this House will enable this Bill to pass, so that we may show our goodwill towards those people who are seriously seeking house accommodation, and our determination, at the same time, to say to those people who are holding up houses for sale against the public, and against the municipal authorities, that we, at any rate, will no longer be a party to such conduct.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I rise to oppose this Bill, in the first instance, because the privilege of introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes' Rule seems to me, as to many of my colleagues in this House, to be very gravely abused at the present time. Every Session thoroughly foolish and ill thought-out Measures are brought before us, the time of the House is wasted, and the opinion held by people outside is steadily depreciated as a result. This Bill is a good example of thoroughly badly thought-out legislation, which is intended, I have no doubt, to catch a few votes from ignorant people, and not to remove
any grievance. Let us consider for a moment what the whole principle of rating is. Rating, I take it, is a form of Income Tax on a peculiar form of income, that is to say, income arising from property within the district of a rating authority. If that income does not arise from the property, it is perfectly obvious that it is a gross injustice to tax an income which does not arise. The income does not arise, and, therefore, the tax does not arise. Let us take an analogous case, in order that hon. Members opposite may see exactly the basis of this argument. Supposing a man, who is ordinarily employed at £3 a week, is out of work, and is offered 40s. a week for that work, and he refuses to take the job at that price. He say, "The normal price, and the price I will have, is 60s., and not 40s., and, therefore, I will not accept the job." Does the hon. Member who has asked leave to introduce the Bill say that that man ought, by some method of taxation, or compulsion, be forced to give his labour at the price which was offered?
The case is completely analogous. A man has something which he wishes to offer in exchange for money in some form or another. He finds he is unable to get what he thinks is a reasonable return for what he offers, and, therefore, he waits until he can get it. In exactly the same way, every man in the country who has labour to give, if he gets an offer he does not think is acceptable, maintains, quite rightly, that he is justified in refusing to give his labour for the wages offered him. I say this Bill cuts at the root of the whole rating system, in the first instance, because it proposes to levy an Income Tax on income which does not exist; and, in the second place, it cuts at the root of the whole system of individual liberty, upon which the life of this country, at any rate in theory, though I am afraid of late years not in practice, is based. Therefore, I do hope that the House will refuse leave to introduce this Bill, first of all, to mark its disapproval of the abuse to which the Ten Minute Rule has been subjected during the lifetime of the last two Parliaments, and, secondly, to maintain as long as we can that the House shall be the guardian of the liberties of this country, and shall not lend itself to the destruction of liberty in a way which was quite unknown in past, days

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McEntee, Mr. Dukes, Mr. Viant, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Lansbury, and Mr. William Henderson.

RATING BILL,

"to make provision with respect to the rating of the owners and lessees of unoccupied houses, and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 15th July, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Amendments to—

Malvern Hills Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Bill [Lords]): Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Captain Berkeley, Mr. Costello, Mr. John Harris, Sir Gerald Hohler, Mr. Lunn, Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Webb and Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Captain Bourne.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. William Graham; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Tillett.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. Pringle; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Chapple and Mr. McNeill.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D: Mr. Hall Caine.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following ten Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords]: Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Becker, Major Sir Herbert Cayzer, MT. Sydney Jones, Mr. Wardlaw Milne, Mr. Pringle, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Sturrock, and Mr. Windsor.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. W. Adamson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This short Bill applies only to Scotland, and has arisen out of the discovery of insulin, which, as is well known, is a most potent drug in the treatment of diabetes. It has not only kept alive many who would, but for it, have died; it has also enabled many who would otherwise have been laid aside to remain, or, indeed, again to become useful citizens of the community, able to take their share in its work and its activities. Fortunately, it is not required in the majority of cases of diabetes; they yield to treatment by means of diet; it is necessary only in serious cases. When it was first introduced into this country in 1923, insulin was most expensive, and, although it has been very substantially reduced, it still remains very costly. The cost of it in the average case amounts to no less than 4s. or 5s. per week, and in some cases the cost exceeds that sum very substantially. The serious feature of this treatment to the individual is that it must continue for a very long period of time, in some cases almost throughout the whole of the life of the patient. An expenditure of 4s. or 5s. per week is a serious burden for a large number of the people to face, and the principal object of the Bill is to enable the public health authorities in Scotland to assist such persons in obtaining the treatment. Under existing legislation, provision is made whereby the following classes may obtain insulin: Persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act receive it as part of their medical benefit; persons on the Poor Roll receive it as part of the medical relief to which they are entitled; and expectant mothers and nursing mothers and their infants and children under five years may receive it through the medium of the maternity and child welfare schemes. The rest of the community are thrown upon their own resources, and to them it is a serious burden. The rest of the community to
which I refer are the men who are working on their own account for a small wage, and, as we know, there are many such cases, and the wives and children of the insured persons who require the drug.
The Bill enables local authorities under the Public Health Act to provide insulin to persons who need assistance in obtaining it. It is an enabling Bill only, and I think some of those who have already expressed opposition to the Bill as it stands have failed to note that it is an enabling Bill only and not compulsory. Local authorities will not be asked to provide the drug free, except to those who cannot afford to pay anything. They will make such charges as the recipient can reasonably be expected to pay, and they will work under a scheme made by themselves and approved by the Scottish Board of Health. Local authorities under the Public Health Acts have at present no power to provide medicines or treatment in such cases as this Bill provides for. Their powers are limited to infectious, epidemic and endemic diseases. Provision under the existing English Public Health Acts empower local authorities to provide insulin in suitable cases. It is intended that the Scottish local authorities should be provided with the same power.

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman quote that Section?

Mr. ADAMSON: I think I can—
Any local authority may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, themselves provide, or contract with any person to provide, a temporary supply of medicine and medical assistance for the poorer inhabitants of the district.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg your pardon. I thought you said that it referred to insulin. Of course, I know that Section

Mr. ADAMSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that it includes insulin.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: indicated assent

Mr. ADAMSON: The purpose of the Bill, as I have already stated, is to put the Scottish health authorities in the same position as the English public health authorities. As the Bill stands, the powers contained therein may be extended to other diseases than diabetes by an
Order of the Scottish Board of Health. The object is to enable medicines to be available in the event of an equally effective remedy being found for some other disease, such as cancer. It was the opinion, when we were dealing with legislation of this character, that it would be well to confer upon our local authorities the power to deal fully and adequately with the health of our people under proper safeguards, these safeguards being such as are provided in the Bill, namely, that an extension will not take effect until it has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and unless either House has not within 21 days' sittings objected to the Order, or that any Order extending the powers under the Bill to another disease shall not come into operation until confirmed by Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. While this will involve a definite determination by Parliament, it will dispense with the necessity for the whole procedure of fresh legislation being gone through whenever a new medical discovery renders it desirable to give additional powers to local authorities. We have had a little experience in connection with this Bill of securing fresh legislation. The First Reading of the Bill took place some time ago, and we have had considerable difficulty in finding the necessary time to give a Second Reading to a very necessary Measure. I think that justifies the step we are taking in making provision for the extension of these powers to other diseases in the event of an effective remedy being found for them in the future.
I understand that this extension is likely to be opposed on representations made by some of the local authorities in Scotland. I would like to say to my fellow Members from Scotland that that is a part of the Bill they will have an opportunity of discussing on the Committee Stage, and if the majority are of the opinion that the extension is undesirable, then it will be within their power to have the Bill amended in that direction. Personally, looking at this matter from the point of view of the health of our people, I hope that will not be their view, but should it prove to be so, then they will have to accept the responsibility, instead of me, of deleting the extension. I have explained as fully as I can, and as shortly as is possible, the objects of the Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading. I hope the
House will see its way to agreeing to the motion without taking up very much of the time of the House. I believe my fellow Members from Scotland are in full sympathy with the main object of the Bill, and I believe also that such local authorities as have been in communication with certain Scottish Members are equally sympathetic with that object. Therefore I do not think there is need to spend much time on a Second Reading debate. I shall be willing to discuss all questions fully in the Scottish Grand Committee and I repeat that if in the wisdom of the majority of hon. Members this extension is not deemed desirable then, much as I regret it, I shall feel bound to accept its deletion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is the first occasion on which I have intruded on a Scottish Bill. These Measures have all been so adequately discussed by the Scottish Members that it has been usual to leave the matter with them, but as I had something to do last year with an important part of the question raised, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words with regard to this Bill. I have read it with great care, and I have also ploughed through the Scottish Public Health Act, 1897, upon which this Bill is to be grafted. I agree with everything the Secretary for Scotland has said with regard to the necessity for the Bill so far as its general principles are concerned, and with regard to the need of insulin for people who cannot afford to pay for it. A great advance was made last year in the use and cheapening of insulin. When I first went to the Ministry of Health it was exceedingly dear. It had become very much cheaper by the time I left, and I believe it will become still cheaper as months go on. I think we English Members, as well as the Scottish Members, are bound to see that any legislation which comes before this House is in proper form. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman, in grafting this Bill on to the Act of 1897, is doing something which is not on all fours with the main object of the Bill before the House. In the Scottish Act of 1897 there is no Section such as is to be found in the English Act of 1875. It is not for me to say why that Section was not inserted in the Scottish Act of 1897, which is almost entirely a sanitary Act dealing with epidemic diseases, insanitary houses, and a great number of sanitary matters in
Scotland. Here we have a Bill which enables the local authorities in Scotland to exercise certain new powers. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned something about payment. Where the recipient is in a position to pay it is desirable that he should pay, but there is no condition, as far as I can see, in the Act of 1897 which will enable Scottish local authorities to make charges for insulin in proper cases and, therefore, that would mean an extension of the Bill to give the local authorities powers which are not included in the Scottish Act of 1897.
The principal point I want to deal with is the proposed extension of the powers of this Bill to other diseases. I want to call the attention of House to the Conference of Scottish Local Authorities, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred: I believe he has met representatives of it within the past week. The local authorities are very anxious that the Bill should pass, provided, in the first place, that power is inserted in it to enable them to charge recipients for insulin, and they do not desire that the further powers proposed as to other diseases should be imposed on them until they have seen how this particular Clause of the Bill will work They never had power at all with regard to any disease, and I think they are quite right, and the House will be quite right, in saying to the right hon. Gentleman, "You must eliminate the particular Clause with regard to other diseases." After all, it is only a small body of people who are affected by this Bill, because already the poor and insured persons are dealt with and insulin is provided for them as well as for expectant mothers and for infants under five years of age.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet the views of the local authorities throughout Scotland who, by a very large majority, agree that he should here and now eliminate from the Bill the provision as to other diseases. Sub-section (2), as the whole House knows, simply says that any Order made by the Scottish Board of Health shall lie on the Table of the House for 21 days, and unless an Address is passed against it by either House of Parliament it shall then become law. Everyone who has had experience in this House knows well that from the time
these Orders are usually laid on the Table towards the end of the month of July there is never an opportunity for a proper discussion of them, and therefore this particular safeguard is a pure myth. The right hon. Gentleman wants to get his Bill through. We are willing it should go through, and that this supply of insulin should be provided for the inhabitants of Scotland, but we do not want the right hon. Gentleman, in trying to get his legislation through as rapidly as possible, to plunge the House into a discussion on the proposed extension. It will of course come before the Scottish Grand Committee, but members of that Committee will forgive me for saying that this is a question for Parliament, and, whatever view they may take, the matter will have to come back to this House, and on the Report stage there may be further discussion and, possibly, objections to the Third Reading. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the proposal I have made here and now and eliminate this Clause and thus get his Bill through its remaining stages in both Houses in the course of the next ten days.

Mr. RAFFAN: I am sure that this Bill has the heartiest sympathy of Members in all parts of the House. If the Scottish Health Department can do anything to relieve the sufferings of those who are afflicted with this terrible disease, I am quite certain it will be the desire of every Member of this House to afford every opportunity in that direction. In this matter I feel confident the Secretary for Scotland has the almost unanimous support of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to recognise, however, that in a Measure of this kind it is of supreme importance he should carry with him the good will of the local authorities. The Conference, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has referred, was a most representative one; it was attended by representatives of all the great Scottish cities, and by, probably, the great majority of the smaller local authorities. It would have been very difficult, indeed, to get together a more representative conference, and I would suggest that, whether they are right or wrong in their conclusion, it is extremely desirable for the Secretary for Scotland in a matter of this kind, to endeavour to work with them.
What will be the use of these further Orders which impose new obligations on the local authorities to take action if those bodies are entirely out of sympathy with that action. Very recently hon. Members from Scotland who support the Government were very keen—and rightly so—in urging the right of the Scottish people to control their own affairs. If there is to be a further development in that direction I would point out it will not be assisted by this Measure, which, so far from securing control of their own affairs, will prevent them from having the voice they desire in the management of those affairs. Let us see what the position is. The Secretary for Scotland says there is great difficulty in getting Scottish Bills through this House of Commons, even when they are practically agreed Bills. He tells us that he introduced this particular Bill some time ago, and with regard to its main principle there is no objection, but the congestion of business has been so great that it has been impossible to bring it forward for Second Reading until now. If similar circumstances arise in the future the House is being asked to abrogate its functions as a legislative assembly, and to allow him or his successors to issue Orders which cannot come before Parliament for discussion in an effective way. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said the safeguard of these Orders is a perfectly illusory one. As my hon. Friend said, there would be no objection to any Order issued by the present Secretary for Scotland. I cannot conceive, therefore, that the thing would arise at present. But if hon. Members had any objection to any Order issued by any future Secretary for Scotland they might have, perhaps, a bitter experience if these Orders were placed upon the Table, and they wished to discuss them, for they might find very few opportunities for doing so. It is not, therefore, unreasonable that the local authorities, including the most progressive local authorities in Scotland, should say: "If we proceed to deal not only with this matter but with other matters, let Parliament decide as they arise, step by step." I do say that this short notice might lead to very serious results; results which, in the long run, nobody would possibly deplore more than my hon. Friends above the Gangway.
At any rate it is, I think, extremely de-
sirable when a matter of this kind has to be decided that whatever steps are taken should be taken with the good will of the local authorities concerned. All, however, that I have risen to point out, and to suggest, to my right hon. Friend is this: he has said with great frankness that if the Scottish Committee decided to take this step he would bow to their decision, and not allow the ship to be wrecked if he can steer it into harbour with certain of its cargo thrown overboard. I congratulate him upon that decision. He has said he is willing to receive representations and practical suggestions; and the practical suggestion that I make is that in the meantime he shouuld be prepared to meet the local authorities—and, after all, they are vitally interested in this matter—for the purpose of discussing it with them. I venture to suggest that if before the Committee meet he is able to find agreement with the local authorities it will be well. If on the one hand the authorities convince him that he should meet their point of view, or the right hon. Gentleman convinces the local authorities that he is right; or, again, in the ordinary British way—some compromise may be effected—if he can come to the Scottish Committee with a Measure agreed to by the local authorities that will be a much more satisfactory way than if what is to happen is that this Bill is to be carried through in the teeth of the opposition of local authorities representing cities like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and the great majority of the smaller local authorities in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at any rate I do plead with him to confer with the local authorities in the meantime, so that if this Measure comes before the Scottish Committee there may be a reasonable hope that it will be a Measure which the local authorities will not only accept but will be willing to work with that hearty co-operation which can alone make a process of this kind successful.

Sir GEORGE BERRY: The Measure before us proposes new powers for the public health authorities in relation to the provision for the treatment of disease. The Act of 1897 referred only to infectious diseases, but public interest in these matters and in these duties has increased. Anyone can provide for him-
Self the benefit of this treatment if he so desires. Yet one must naturally desire to give or to help to give to diabetics who are unable to provide it for themselves the benefit of this insulin treatment. But is this the most expedient way to do it? It is allowed that it is not a cure, though it alleviates sufferings, unless an individual is so very far gone that he is not likely to be restored to a measure of normal health. It requires, however, daily use, and it requires also that the patient should be under medical supervision; and it is costly. Therefore, this form of treatment is in a different category, as it were, from any other sort of treatment. I cannot understand, however, why it is that this insulin treatment should have led the Secretary for Scotland to introduce further words to the effect that
or such other diseases as the Board may by Order prescribe.
The reason why the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill has obviously been that he has been inspired by the Fifth Annual Report which the Scottish Board of Health sent in some time ago. But there is no mention whatever of any other illness or any other form of treatment than the insulin treatment for diabetes. Let me read a few sentences from page 89 of the Report—
Diabetes is not at present regarded as epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease, and local authorities have therefore no power to treat it. We have suggested, however, that a short Act should be passed providing that the powers of a local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall include power to make such arrangements as they may think fit and as may be sanctioned by us for providing medicines and treatment to persons suffering from diabetes, and who in the opinion of the local authority require assistance in obtaining such medicines and treatment.
Not a word about any other disease. I submit that this sort of anticipatory legislation in connection with diseases for which there may possibly be a treatment in the future is not only a new departure but it is a dangerous departure. Such departure indefinitely widens the scope of any Bill, and seems to me to be unnecessary. Some day extension powers may be wanted, but these should be obtained by further legislation, and after due consideration of the circumstances, and not by an Order to be made by the Scottish Board of Health. Therefore, I
should like the Secretary for Scotland to allow us to have the main Clause of this Bill, and that these words in the Bill,
or such other diseases as the Board may by Order describe
shall be deleted. Like my right hon. Friend, if these words are deleted, I shall support the Minister, but not if he insists upon retaining the interpolated words.

Mr. DICKS0N: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down suggested that to have something here of an anticipatory character in a Bill was a new and dangerous proceeding. I myself think that one of the most dangerous proceedings in these matters of public administration, as embodied in previous legislation, is that we have never had sufficient anticipation for circumstances that might arise or matters that might develop in connection with any disease in the community. If that were the only comment on the Bill we could all join in a chorus of praise. I think that the proposal coming from all those who have spoken is one that is very necessary; but I rather disagree in regard to one point, and that is this: that I think disease of almost any character, particularly disease of an epidemic, infectious, or contagious character, should not be looked upon as merely the business of those in whose area it may arise, or in which that disease requires to be cured, and for that reason I rather regret there is not some provision in this Bill indicating that the local authority, in regard to the expenditure in this Bill, for the provision of insulin for diabetes, or for the provision of any other necessary medicine or treatment for any other disease which the Board may think ought to be so treated—that there is not some provision or indication that the local authorities will be in some measure relieved from the expenditure incurred. I know that the Secretary of State may say that he is simply following the precedent in operation under the English law.
That seems to me, however, if it be so, the poorest reason that; you could have for any Scotchman to take up an attitude of that sort, especially upon matters affecting finance, I did expect that a Sotchman, and particularly a Fifeshire Scotchman, would have taken up a slightly different view on financial questions to those of our weaker brethren in England. The first call, it seems to me, ought to be in relation to the health
of the people, irrespective of the financial burden that is to be placed, or whomsoever the charges are to be made against. Our first business is to cure, to apply the treatment, and if possible to cure the disease.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) thought that there should be some provision in the Bill in order to insure payment of such treatment by those who were able to pay. It seemed to me that the last line or two of Clause 1, Sub-section (1), deals with that point, because the treatment is only to be given to those who, in the opinion of the local authority, require assistance in obtaining medicine and treatment. It is given only to those who, in the judgment of the local, authority, require assistance. It is unlikely they will get the treatment without pay if they can pay for it or pay for the medicine. I wish to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that if it be possible—I do not know whether it is, but it may be—for him to-night to indicate that there will be some measure of financial support or assistance to the local authorities, he will do so. Because what is going to happen is this: that you are going to have the conduct of the local authorities determined, not by the need for the provision of such insulin, and for the need of such treatment, but by the financial considerations, and also a desire to keep the rates down in any particular area. For that reason I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have indicated whether or not it is possible to get the Treasury to pay, in some measure, the cost of all such treatment. We are faced in Scotland, as, I think, in every other country, with a continual increase in the local rates for the treatment of this and other matters, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to take the point of view that it is not merely a concern of the local authority in which the disease may exist, because disease has a habit of flying over frontiers, and may change its place from one month to another. There is a question of national responsibility here, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman accepts that point of view. The fact that the Secretary for Scotland brings forward the Bill is a recognition of that national responsibility. I hope alongside that he will also recognise
some principle of national financial responsibility.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon introducing a Bill which, in its main purpose, has secured the unanimity of all parties. It has secured the unanimity also of the vivisectionists and the antivivisectionists, a result which has always before been considered beyond the power of man. We have the support of anti-vivisectionists in the application of a remedy rendered available as a result of operations upon dogs. There is a great deal to be said for making the costs of treatment for this disease national. There is, under the treatment by means of insulin, a tendency for all those suffering from the disease to come to centres with large hospitals, where the treatment which is still highly technical can be best carried out. People suffering will tend to gravitate to those centres and may become a cost upon those particular areas, while at the same time giving immunity from rates to country districts from which they have come. There is a great deal to be said therefore for making this a national charge. As these patients gather around great hospitals and great centres where the treatment is easily and skilfully applied, we shall find that the cost will not be equally distributed throughout all classes of the community. The extreme danger that follows defective or delayed treatment makes it essential that those suffering from diabetes should have a ready access, not only to insulin but to hospitals where they can get continuous as well as scientific treatment. If you once start treating a patient with insulin, you have not only to keep up the treatment but you have to keep it up with regularity, because if you once stop it the patient, in many cases, is in greater danger than if you had not started with the treatment at all. Therefore I am in favour of making the cost national if this can be done, but this is a point we can deal with in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If that be so, we ought to take this point into consideration now.
I admit that the disease is geographically equally distributed in one sense, but it tends to be unequally distributed in the sense I have indicated. The Secretary for Scotland referred to those who require financial assistance. Those require-
ing insulin will require financial assistance in order to buy it. With regard to the issuing of Orders as opposed to a new Measure, when occasion may arise in the future, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir G. Berry) said, "We could legislate when the necessity arose owing to the discovery of some new treatment." I am opposed to that entirely. What we want is promptness. There has been considerable delay in introducing this Bill. It might have been introduced at the beginning of the year and passed with the unanimous consent of the House. In regard to this disease, there is great danger in delay. A very much-beloved Member of this House was dying when this remedy was first discovered, and if he had lived only a few months longer he would have come under the influence of this treatment and would have been living now. I know the case of a young man in Glasgow who was dying of diabetes when the value of insulin was first made known. He saw it in the Press and made some inquiries amongst his friends, but they threw cold water on it, and said that its virtues had probably been very much exaggerated. He heard of six others being treated, but he lost interest in following up those who were being treated and he was put off from having the treatment himself because someone had told him it was hardly worth while. Those six are alive and well to-day, but that young man died within a few months because treatment had not been adopted. Therefore there is a great deal to be said for promptness, and Orders laid upon the Table give promptness when Bills entail delay. I think it is quite inconceivable that the Scottish Board of Health would lay on the Table anything which would provoke the hostility of any party in regard to this matter. We might have a discovery for cancer at any moment. The whole scientific world at the present time is concentrated upon that most dreaded of all diseases. One out of every seven over the age of 45 die of cancer, and it is dreadful to think that, because of delay or ignorance, anyone should die of a curable disease. Therefore I strongly support the Bill, not only in its operative part but in regard to its other provisions as well. I think, however, that the cost might press severely upon certain localities in which the hospitals are
situated whilst giving other areas immunity altogether, and consequently the cost should be a national charge.

Mr. STEWART (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I appeal to the House to allow this Bill to go through. The arguments which have been used have dealt with two particular faults in the Bill. One is with regard to giving us power by an Order in Council to deal with other diseases in case a cure is discovered, such as cancer, or perhaps some form of nervous disease. I submit that in the natural order of things that is absolutely necessary. It takes a long time for a Bill to get through this House and become an Act of Parliament, and in the meantime neither the local authority nor the central authority have any power to deal with the matter until Parliament has given them the power. Therefore, we ask that the central authority, combined with the local authority, should be given the necessary power. I do not think there is a great deal of opposition on the part of the local authority, and all the opposition which has been raised, I submit, can be met between now and the Report stage. If there should be a difference of opinion the proposals can be altered in Committee.

Mr. RAFFAN: Would the Under-Secretary be prepared to meet representatives of the local authorities?

Mr. STEWART: I dare say the Secretary for Scotland will reply to that argument. The next point which has been raised is the right to charge for treatment, but I do not think the local authorities press that point. There are in Scotland 3,000 people suffering from diabetes, and of that number only 25 per cent. Can be treated with insulin. Of that 750 a great many are in a position to pay for it, because some of them are well-to-do. Some of them are paupers, but all these, combined with the cases of women and children, are already entitled to the treatment, and provision can be made for them under the National Health Insurance Act or child welfare schemes. That leaves a very small number to be treated by the authority, and the cost of the basis of to-day's charges would be less than £5,000. The average cost of weekly treatment per patient is estimated at something between 4s. or 5s., and that would mean that the total cost to authorities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen
and the county authorities would not amount to anything more than a few pounds per annum.
It has already been pointed out that this is a matter of vital importance to the individual, and if it is not dealt with immediately damage will be done, and death may ensue. It will save many a mother who is not insured, and whose husband may be earning between £2 10s. or £3 a week, and who cannot find the wherewithal to continue this treatment, because it must be continued throughout life if the person is to be maintained in a proper state of health. I appeal to hon. Members to let us have the Second Reading of this Bill now, and if any Amendments are necessary, they can be dealt with on the Committee stage, where we can make such changes as will meet with the unanimous approval of the House.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Most of the objections which have been raised to this Bill are not objections to the terms of the Measure, but they happen to be criticisms which could be made in regard to any Measure in relation to local taxation. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) has argued in favour of this being made a national charge. Anybody who has had any connection with local authorities in regard to the administration of public health is fully aware of the difficulties that arise, in this connection. For example, the very serious question arises, will persons who go to a treatment centre which may be erected for the treatment of diabetes acquire residence? If so, they will then become chargeable, to the parish in which the treatment centre is situated. That problem, however, is one which arises in connection with other diseases, but these points do not concern us this afternoon. They are part and parcel of the larger question of public health administration in relation to Imperial taxation. The point with which we have now to deal is this: Are we going to give an enabling power—it is not a compulsory power—to the more progressive authorities to deal now with cases of diabetes where they arise? I quite agree with the suggestion that has been made that powers ought to be taken to enable local authorities to make charges, where charges can be suitably made, to persons who are able to pay, or to pay a part of.
the necessary expenses of treatment. That, however, is a Committee point which ought not to be raised here at all.
I forget how many months have passed since this Bill was first brought before the House. I am told that it was first introduced 15 months ago, and I do not know how many persons have died since that date who would not have died if this Bill had been speedily passed though and become law. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Raffan), that this Bill ought not to be allowed to go through because we are also in favour of Home Rule, that is an argument which I totally fail to understand. This Bill simply gives local authorities an enabling power. It gives more local power, to the people who know the circumstances best, to deal with these cases as they arise, and to give assistance from the public funds to persons who would die if they did not receive such assistance. The argument that the Secretary for Scotland should not take power to deal rapidly with other diseases is really an amazing one, coming from a Scottish representative. English public health authorities have this power now; why should not we also have it? I have been the convener of a public health authority in Scotland, and I know that there are a dozen diseases with which we cannot now deal, and in regard to which we are simply helpless; and I suggest that it is high time that greater powers should be given to the local authorities to deal with these diseases. The Convention of Royal Burghs, or the dominating figures therein, have succeeded in getting a resolution passed to prevent local authorities from dealing urgently and rapidly with cases of diabetes.

Mr. RAFFAN: No, not as regards diabetes. I do not know if there is a misunderstanding on this point. This was not the convention of Royal Burghs, but a body specially convened to consider this matter. They do not at all object to the provision as to diabetes, but they do say that other diseases should be dealt with by legislation, in the same way as this.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is the point I am trying to make. If to-morrow morning a cure was discovered for cancer, it is proposed that no local authority in Scotland should be entitled to deal with that until it can get the permission of
this House. I put it to the hon. Member, who is a pledged Home Ruler, that that is not an attitude which he can logically defend upon the platform, and if he has had that idea pumped into him from some of the reactionaries who run the convention of Royal Burghs, he should no longer take his instructions from people like that. This is only an enabling Bill, and progressive authorities only need deal with it. Reactionary authorities need not do so. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will not yield, or, at any rate, that he will listen before he does, to the pressure that is being brought to bear upon him this afternoon to take that provision out of the Bill. Every progressive local authority which wants to deal with disease will want to have these powers. It need not exercise them in every case if it does not wish to do so, but it ought to have them without being tied up by this House. I could not understand the objection taken by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir G. Berry) to proceeding by an Order of the Board of Health, because such an Order must receive the approval of this House.

Mr. PRINGLE: No.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Order is laid on the Table, and if no objection be taken within 21 days it goes through and automatically becomes law, but any one Member of this House can make a Motion against it.

Mr. PRINGLE: No; you must put down an Address.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Any One Member can do it.

Mr. RAFFAN: Six hundred of them could not, although they were all desirous of doing it. They would get no opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The authorities can dispute about this matter—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not it fact, Mr. Speaker, that, when an Order has been laid on the Table of the House, any Member can, by moving that an Address be presented to the Crown, have the matter debated, and, if a majority of the House go into the Lobby against the Order, the Order is rejected?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Every Member of this House can take objection to any Order that is placed on the Table. It has been done, and I have sat in this House when it was done.

Mr. PRINGLE: Those are Orders that require the approval of the House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: No amount of interruption on a side issue of that kind is material. The point is that this is an enabling Bill. The Secretary for Scotland has asked that powers be given to progressive local authorities to deal with a disease which is carrying off thousands of our fellow-citizens. I understand that those who have made certain indirect objections are prepared to waive them, but objection is also taken by Liberal and Conservative Members to the provision which would enable progressive local authorities to deal with other diseases when proper remedies are discovered for them. I trust that the people of Scotland will take note of that.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to say that I welcome this Bill. As the Secretary for Scotland pointed out in his clear and comprehensive speech, this is a Bill to enable him and the Scottish Board of Health to perform a very useful public service. The amount of suffering caused in Scotland by diabetes is appalling. The House will have been surprised to hear that there are actually 3,000 people in Scotland suffering from this disease at the present moment, and, as I understand, no more than 760 of them are able to afford the very expensive medicine which this Bill will provide.

Mr. STEWART: No, what I said was that only 750 of them require this medicine.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry if I did not catch exactly what the hon. Gentleman said, but there is clear evidence that this disease is very prevalent, and I am delighted that the Secretary for Scotland is coming forward now with a Bill to help the poorer classes of the community to procure the medicine that is necessary to care them. In presenting this Bill, the Secretary for Scotland is merely placing Scotland in the same position as England. I know that my hon. Friend who will probably follow me disagrees with that, but I put it to the House that the real reading of the
Section in the English Act is the reading which the Secretary for Scotland gave to it in his introductory speech. In any case, if I may humbly say so, I am perfectly satisfied that he is right in his reading of the Section. Every Member who has spoken is really in favour of the Bill, but some local authorities in Scotland say that they are being asked to do something to which they object if the words are put in
or such other diseases as the Board may by Order prescribe.
I do not share the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Raffan), or of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side of the House. I think the House must have been impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple). There is no doubt at all that the greatest necessity is for precaution and speed, and these words ensure those two things. These words are a precautionary measure. At any moment a disease may break out, and, without these words, it would be necessary to collect in the Scottish Office all the paraphernalia necessary to go through the long routine of getting a Bill through this House, while it is so often the case as every medical man will tell you, that, if you get a case of disease early and quickly, you are all the more able to stem its progress. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong in leaving these words in, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I am prepared to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby on the Bill as it stands. I know perfectly well that the placing of a Resolution on the Table of the House of Commons has been proved in practice not to be very effective, but I agree with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) that it is possible for a Member of the House to give effect to a Resolution placed on the Table in the way that is proposed. We Members of Parliament are very quickly advised of any such proposal by the local authorities, and those of us who attend to our business are able effectively to see to it that the Board of Health or any local authority cannot abuse its power or its office. A public health authority in Scotland would be afraid to come forward with a stupid proposal to include any quack medicine within this Order, and I am content to rely on the sound judgment and wisdom
of any great public Department placed in control of so serious a matter as the health of the people. I am quite willing to allow the words enabling any new disease to be brought into the category to remain in the Bill. With regard to the cost, I think the public health of the community ought to be kept up at the expense of the public purse. By that I mean that if you are going to give, for a special medicine of this kind, special facilities for the poorer classes to get it the public Exchequer should come forward and provide the necessary sum to pay for that medicine. I do not think I have the support of the party sitting behind me in its entirety in the attitude I am taking up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]—but I feel very strongly that this Bill should be given a Second Reading at once and that we should hesitate long before, by omitting these words, we give room for any delay on the part of the Public Health Authority in Scotland in treating a disease which can come on very suddenly and very rapidly. We must bear in mind the words of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) that it is so often the case that a remedy speedily applied is the most effective cure that can possibly be applied.

Captain ELLIOT: We do not wish in any way to delay the discussion of the Measure, but, it is the supporters of the Secretary for Scotland who have contributed most to the discussion in the last half hour. [Interruption.] We have confidence in our leaders, if the hon. Member has not. But there are one or two points which it is still necessary to make. The first is as to delay under this Measure. It is said that because of the delay in introducing the Bill, certain persons have died who otherwise would have been kept alive. Is it not the case that the local authorities have been taking action under this, although it was straining the law considerably, all the time, and that no one has been applying for this remedy who has been unable to get it on account of cost in Scotland? So that the first point falls absolutely to the ground. It would be one of the most damaging accusations which could be brought against the House that, for a mere desire to indulge in debate, they have held up the application of a remedy vital to the health of the people of Scotland.

Dr. CHAPPLE: That is hardly the case. I heard from a medical friend in Scotland recently that quite a number of people were suffering from diabetes and not getting the treatment.

Captain ELLIOT: I am quite willing to take the statement of the Under-Secretary for Health in the matter.

Mr. STEWART: In this matter we decided to ask the local authorities to treat cases, we guaranteeing that we would do all we could to get them the power to do so. Some of them may not have attended to it. I have not learned officially of any case which has not been provided with insulin, but I have no information to the contrary.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many local authorities have in fact used the powers which have been provisionally granted?

Mr. STEWART: I am sorry I cannot, but I know that the large authorities and centres—Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere—have been dealing with the matter.

Captain ELLIOT: That absolutely disproves one of the main points which have been made, and particularly made against hon. Members who do not entirely see eye to eye with the solution that by debating this Measure, or by insisting on an opportunity for debate, they have in any way prejudiced the health of the people of Scotland so far as it has come to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, who is, after all, officially responsible for it in this House.

Mr. STEWART: May I make one other explanation Before the Board of Health took action in this matter, there were some cases who were dying because of poverty and inability to get the treatment.

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that by administrative action it was competent for him to deal with the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "By straining the law!"] After all, the essence of authority is that it should be exercised with a certain amount of common sense, and in this matter I think it is obvious that if there is any straining of the law it is infinitely more in England than in Scotland, for the Section which the Secretary for Scotland read out states clearly that the local
authorities in England have only power to make temporary provision, and it has been most clearly brought out in the Debate that this is not a temporary, but a permanent provision, and indeed Gentlemen speaking with the full weight of medical authority have said this treatment, once entered upon, has to be continued for all the person's life long, so if there is any straining it is much more in the case of the English than of the Scottish local authorities. Further, the situation is not, I think, quite as has been described by the Secretary for Scotland and his supporters. They have claimed on several occasions, more particularly I think the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston), that this is merely an enabling Bill. Let us read the words of the Bill:
The powers of a local authority shall include power to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Board of Health for providing medicines and treatment to persons who are suffering from diabetes or such other diseases"—
Let us read the Section of the Public Health Act to which this addition is to be grafted. It says:
The Board may from time to time make alter and revoke such Regulations as to the said Board seem fit…and may declare by what authority or authorities such Regulations shall be enforced and executed.

Mr. PRINGLE: Clause 1 of this Bill does not amend any Section of the Public Health Act. It is a general Amendment of the Act and simply relates to powers.

Captain ELLIOT: Surely that leaves the Act with all its powers. One of the powers, which the Board thinks is of the highest importance, which the local authority has and which the Board therefore may command it to execute, is the power to treat persons suffering not merely from this disease but any such other disease as is prescribed by the Board. This puts the Scottish local authority into a position differing fundamentally from the position in which English authorities are since the English authorities, it is said, merely shall have power to make temporary arrangements. This says the Board shall have power to command the local authorities to make arrangements.
This brings me to the point of cost. It is surely not a mere question for the Committee stage even as to whether any proportion of the cost should be borne by the
Central Authority or not. We are putting by this Bill a mandatory power into the hands of the central authority. I think that stands out clearly from the legislation. This mandatory power may be exercised without one penny of contribution being paid by the central authority.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I understand this is carrying out public health work, and if that is so does not the State contribute so much for public health work?

Captain ELLIOT: If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will assure us that the Treasury has made provision for the payment of, not 100 per cent. grant as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), but for a 50 per cent. grant, or for any contribution at all, towards this expense, the point which has been made will have been met, but we have not any statement by the Financial Secretary to that effect. He makes no pronouncement. We must take it that in this case there is no suggestion whatever that one penny of this expenditure will be borne by the central authority, and whereas it may be necessary to have this accepted by local authorities for the particular case of diabetes, it is extending the principle to a great length if we say, as the hon. Member for Stirling said, that there are a dozen such diseases which he is anxious to get ahead and treat now, because it may be that a very heavy burden will be laid on the local authorities which they have no guarantee or indeed any promise of a halfpenny of support from the central authority for. For example, with all the other things which have been mentioned, maternity and child welfare, you get a considerable grant—a 50 per cent. Grant—towards them. In the case of tuberculosis you get a 50 per cent, grant. In the case of venereal disease you get as much as a 75 per cent. grant. We are embarking on an entirely new field when, we say that not in respect of this disease alone, which will fall with peculiar severity upon local authorities which have large hospital accommodation in their area, but of such other diseases as may be prescribed under the Act, no contribution of any kind shall be made by the State. It is a question of principle that this Bill should have been preceded by a Financial Resolution which would have helped local authorities to make a certain contribution—at least
a 50 per cent. Contribution—towards the expenses of the Bill which it has made in the case of other diseases. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on dealing with this question, which we ourselves had under consideration and which I was very anxious to see dealt with in the course of last autumn.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are you going to bring in a Financial Resolution?

Captain ELLIOT: I was pressing naturally for financial support, as indeed I have no doubt the Under-Secretary for Health and the Secretary for Scotland have. We put the case up to the Treasury on more than one occasion.

Mr. MACLEAN: What success did you get?

Captain ELLIOT: The measure of our success may be observed by the fact that we did not bring in the legislation. We considered it necessary to explore every avenue to make certain that we did not throw this big harden on local authorities without making any corresponding contribution towards their expenses, and I submit that hon. Members have been worsted in their battle with the Treasury, and it is necessary for us on this side of the House to support them in every way we can, and to point out to them that the chances of success of their Measure are being greatly militated against by the fact that this contribution is being thrown on the local authorities alone. I, too, have sat on that bench and have often been greatly indebted to the Opposition for support for a view which, although not officially supported, was regarded with the deepest sympathy, and the strength of the criticism the House makes against this Measure will be the measure of strength the right hon. Gentleman will have in putting up a case, for further consideration of this by the Cabinet and, more particularly, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I claim that the effect of this discussion has abundantly justified the demand which we on this side made for a full discussion of this Measure. The greater part of the time has been taken up by hon. Members opposite, and there is by no means the unanimity about the Measure which the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. We, therefore, claim that he should still consider whether he cannot now give us an
indication that, if this Measure of emergency is extended to diabetes, he will not seek to extend it to all the other diseases which he may afterwards see fit to prescribe. Not that we are lacking in sympathy for the people suffering from these diseases, but, that we are opposed to the principle of this House conferring mandatory powers upon the Scottish Board of Health without contributing one penny towards the cost of carrying out its own mandate. That is the principle against which we must protest, as being responsible to our own country, and we must see that it is not carried into effect without serious protest.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. and gallant Member has been in error in his interpretation. He suggested that Clause 1 was an Amendment of Section 78 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. If hon. Members will examine Clause 1 they will see that there is no reference in that Clause to any Section of the Public Health (Scotland) Act. If Clause 1 was to be construed with Section 78, it would have been drawn in such a way as to make it absolutely clear that the powers conferred under Clause 1 were to be exercised in accordance with the machinery of Section 78. In the absence of any such reference, I submit that the hon. and gallant Member was in error in reading the machinery of Section 78 into Clause 1. I gather that the Secretary for Scotland is in agreement with me on that point.
Clause 1 is, in general terms, an addition to the powers at present enjoyed by local authorities under the Public Health (Scotland) Act. It does not enjoin a duty, but confers a power upon those authorities to act, first of all, in regard to diabetes. I understand from the Under-Secretary that already several authorities have so acted, and the Clause indicates that the legality of those powers is being sanctioned by the phrase—
The powers of the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall include and be deemed, as from the first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, to have included power to make such arrangements.
and so forth.
I understand that the object of these words is to legalise what has been done by certain local authorities at the instance
of the Board of Health since the 1st March. It may be that the Secretary for Scotland is acting in this way and simply conferring the power on local authorities because the Treasury does not wish to contribute. If the Secretary for Scotland had been making this a duty upon the local authorities, then the question of cost would have arisen and the local authorities would have had a claim upon the Treasury.

Captain ELLIOT: May I ask my hon. Friend, from his great knowledge of Scottish legal affairs, whether a patient would not have the power to sue a local authority and take the local authority to the Court under the provisions of this Act?

Mr. PRINGLE: That is a question which it is very difficult to answer offhand, but my view would be that no ratepayer or resident within the area of any local authority would have an action against that authority for its failure to exercise a discretionary power.

Captain ELLIOT: That is the gist of the Bill. The Bill says:
The powers of a local authority…shall include.
Therefore, the local authority can be taken to the Court, either by the central authority or by a local person, for failure to carry out these powers.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend does not appreciate the difference between powers and duties. If it had stated that the duties of a local authority "shall include the duty to make such arrangements," there would have been an action on the part of any resident dissatisfied with the action of the local authority, but when it is merely a power to the local authority to do a thing, then there is a discretion left to the local authority. It is left with a discretion, which it may or may not exercise as it sees fit, and failure to exercise the discretion does not give cause of action either in Scotland or in England. I think the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H Craik) would bear out that interpretation.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am afraid that I should have very grave doubts. According to the hon. Member's own description, certain duties are placed upon the local authority. Would not that entitle
a person who was intended to benefit to take action under the Act against the local authority if it failed to carry out its duty?

Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry that I have not made it clear that in this matter we are not dealing with a duty. The right hon. Member assumes that it is a duty that is placed upon the local authority. There is a clear distinction in all our legislation between powers and duties. May I give an illustration from educational legislation. There are powers in regard to continuation schools exercisable by local authorities. These powers have been exercised in some cases and continuation schools have been set up. In other cases the powers have not been exercised, but the failure to set up continuation schools has not been a ground of action by any child or the parent of any child, I have said that certain powers are granted under this Bill, but no duties are enjoined and, therefore, there can be no right of action.

Sir H. CRAIK: There is a good deal in the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot) that this Clause 2 does involve the creation of certain powers and duties, because there is a mandatory power of the central authority to require the local authority to do a particular thing.

Mr. PRINGLE: That is a point upon which I was endeavouring to combat the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member. I hold that the hon. Member has misconceived the structure of the Bill. He assumed that because he was dealing with the powers of the local authorities in relation to public health that it was an Amendment of Section 78 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act. In terms, it is not an Amendment of Section 78. Section 78 does not deal with the powers of local authorities, but with the powers of the Local Government Board, as it then was, and the Scottish Board of Health which it now is, which is entitled to make regulations enjoining duties upon local authorities. That is not the structure of this Bill. I am glad to see that the Secretary for Scotland agrees with me that this a discretionary power which certain authorities have already exercised, and which I understand certain other authorities propose to exercise. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in any
part of the House as to the wisdom of conferring these powers and as to the desirability of those powers being exercised.

Sir H. CRAIK: In Clause 1 there are the words
as the Board may by order prescribe.
It does not say "as the Board may approve." The Bill indicates that the initiation is taken by the Board in prescribing certain diseases which are to be treated in a particular way by the local authorities. If the words had been "as the Board may approve," the initiative would have been with the local authority, but by putting in the words
as the Board may by Order prescribe.
the initiative rests with the central authority.

Mr. PRINGLE: By looking at a subordinate phrase in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has been misled. The first Clause does two things. It confers a power in regard to diabetes. For the purpose of the treatment of diabetes the local authorities will have power to give treatment and medicine. A further power is granted that in other cases in future, and in regard to such other diseases as the Board may by Order prescribe, the local authorities will have similar powers. It is only in relation to these other diseases that the Board will have any power to prescribe. It has not powers in regard to diabetes.

Captain ELLIOT: Surely that makes it all the more urgent that we should not have two such widely differing laws in the same Act.

Mr. PRINGLE: That is a matter of argument. I assume now that I have convinced my hon. and gallant Friend on my first point. The hon. and gallant Member admits that I am right that, as far as diabetes is concerned, it is simply a discretionary power.

Captain ELLIOT: No.

Mr. PRINGLE: Then there is no difference between the two parts of the Bill. The contention put by the hon. and gallant Member was that we had two different things in the Bill and that, therefore, we should deal with them separately. That was the argument of the right hon. Member for Brentford (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). The whole point about Sub-section (2)
was that we were dealing with two things. First of all, a perfectly clear issue in regard to diabetes. The right hon. Member for Brentford said: "You are giving powers to deal with diabetes. Stop there. Do not give power to make Orders in regard to other diseases, because that is a power it is not safe to trust to a Department. Even the safeguard given under Sub-section (2) to have these Orders laid on the Table of the House is not a sufficient safeguard. Let the Minister come to the House and get Parliamentary authority in a Statute for any further powers." I observe that the hon. and gallant Member is converted to that. I assume that I have made out my case that as far as diabetes is concerned this is merely a power which local authorities may exercise or no as they please, but no duty is imposed upon them, and that if they carry out the powers conferred upon them the cost is to be borne by the local authority.
There has been some dispute as to where the cost should fall and the hon. and gallant Member, trusting to his interpretation, which I have shown to be inaccurate, has suggested that it should be borne by the National Exchequer. If the Secretary for Scotland had imposed a duty he would have had to take over, at least, a share of the expense by way of grants-in-aid, but as it is merely a discretionary power, apparently, he is able to escape financial liability. It is extraordinary that so few representatives of Scotland have insisted upon getting something from the Treasury. In all my experience, whenever a Bill relating to Scotland has been before the House, I have found unanimity on all sides amongst Scottish Members that the cost should fall upon the Treasury. This is the first time that I have found any difference of opinion in regard to such a matter, which rather indicates a deterioration on the part of Scotsmen.
A further question which arises is as to the granting of the power to the Board under these Regulations to prescribe other diseases in respect of which the local authority may act. I do not think it is a very dangerous power under the circumstances. I do not attach much importance to laying Orders on the Table of the House. I have had experience in endeavouring to upset Orders
laid upon the Table of the House by the Scottish Education Authority.

Sir H. CRAIK: Does the hon. Member hold that in this Bill there are two distinct procedures—with regard to diabetes in which a discretion is left to the local authority and the central authority does not have any power at all, and that after that is done, the central authority may at any time intervene and prescribe other diseases by Order in Council, and order the local authority to provide treatment for those diseases?

Mr. PRINGLE: What I have said is right. Clause 1 gives power to the local authorities which they do not at present enjoy. It goes on to say that if in the future the Board of Health believe that there are other diseases in regard to which the local authorities may usefully exercise the same power, then the Board of Health may issue an Order mentioning these diseases.

Sir H. CRAIK: Prescribing the diseases.

Mr. PRINGLE: Prescribing the diseases in relation to which the local authorities shall have these powers. The only difference is that in one case the disease is mentioned in the Statute, and in the other case the diseases will be mentioned in Orders made by the Scottish Board of Health. The House need not have any apprehension as to a wild exercise of this power by the Scottish Board of Health, because if the Board of Health makes an Order it will lie on the Table, and, failing opposition on the part of Scottish Members, will become law, but even then it will be for the local authorities to decide whether they will exercise the powers or not. In these circumstances there is no risk of any wild exercise of the powers.

Mr. ADAMSON: With the permission of the House, I would like to answer one or two of the criticisms which have been levelled against this Bill. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is right in the general argument which he has put forward, and as he has demolished the main part of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot) there is no necessity for me to take up time in dealing with what was the prin-
cipal part of the hon. and gallant Member's objection to the Bill. The only part left, so far as I can see, is that in which he says that there is no particular hurry, but I do not agree with what he said on this point. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), this Bill is an enabling Bill, and the authorities will be able to say in what cases they will give this assistance and what cases do not in their opinion require this provision made for them. Schemes made under the provision of the Act of 1897 will be made by the local authorities themselves, and it will be for the Board of Health to approve of the schemes that are drawn up. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Raffan) asked if the Secretary for Scotland would be prepared to discuss this Bill with the local authorities. I am perfectly prepared to do so, and I have already discussed the Measure with one or two of the local authorities.

Mr. RAFFAN: Will you be prepared to discuss it with the local authorities before the Committee stage?

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, I am quite prepared to discuss it with the remaining authorities which object to the terms of the Bill, before we reach the Committee stage, so that they may get every satisfaction. I hope that the fact that I am willing to discuss fully in Committee all the points of difference, and that I am even prepared to meet the local authorities before the Committee stage takes place, will induce hon. Members to let me have the Second Reading without a Division, and without very much more time being spent on the Bill. Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that no provision is made for assisting local authorities to bear expenditure involved in providing such medicines as might be required. My reply is that there is no grant to any local authorities for supplying such medicines, and provision for assisting a Scottish local authority would undoubtedly mean that you would have to make similar provision in the case of English local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Not necessarily. Scotsmen always get the best of everything.

Mr. ADAMSON: There is no assistance granted except in the case of infectious diseases. There is provision in special welfare schemes, but, generally speaking, up to now, except in the case of infectious diseases, no part of the cost has been borne, by the Treasury. If it were done in the case of the Bill which we are discussing now, it would be a departure from the general practice, and it would raise an issue of some considerable importance, an issue which, in my opinion, would require to be discussed very fully by all sections of the House. It is not a matter that could be settled by the Scottish section of the House either in Grand Committee or in a discussion of this kind. I hope that hon. Members will now give me the Second Reading without a Division, and without further discussion.

Mr. STURROCK: I regret very much that, I am unable to fall in with the view of my right hon. Friend, but we have so few opportunities of discussing in this House Bills which affect those who live in Scotland, that we must seize any opportunity of dealing with any Measure which may come up. I confess that, having listened to the reply which my right hon. Friend has just made, and recognising as I do the generosity of his instincts in the matter of agreeing that the Bill may be amended in Committee, I still find myself under the leadership of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove, because this does appear to me to be a Bill which is based on a completely wrong principle, and for this reason, that instead of vesting the local authorities with powers, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the Board of Health complete power to dictate to the local authorities. In the first place it is laid down, as regards providing medicines and treatment to persons who are suffering from diabetes, or such other disease as the Board may by order prescribe, and who, in the opinion of the local authority, and so on. I am not naturally a suspicious person, but I do foresee that by this well-intentioned Bill we are going to place all the local authorities for years to come another of those disabilities from which Scottish local authorities have suffered in the past. In other words, they are not going to be masters in their own affairs. They are going to have everything prescribed for them by the Scottish Board of
Health. They are going to be told that this that or the other diseases are going to be scheduled, and that they will then be called on to administer these powers.

Mr. PRINGLE: No.

Mr. STURROCK: As I understand the Bill the Board of Health is going to tell the local authorities that they must do these things.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is only as you understand it. As I understand this Clause the local authority is to be told by the Board of Health—the Board of Health will "by order prescribe."

Mr. PRINGLE: Prescribe only for disease.

Mr. STURROCK: Yes, but—

Mr. PRINGLE: The local authorities will only have power; they will not be compelled.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. STURROCK: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument. If the Board of Health put forward this point the local authority is bound to act; it is compelled to take action. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then what will happen will be what happened to the Dublin Corporation the, other day. The local authority will be relieved of its functions and the Board of Health will take upon itself the duty of carrying out all the powers referred to in this Bill. When the Bill reaches the Committee stage the Secretary for Scotland ought to strengthen Clause 1 in the direction of giving the local authorities greater power than that which is given in the Clause now. We have too often passed Measures without thinking of what is to happen when they reach the Statute Book. For many years we have had the cases of local authorities being burdened with powers which they never sought and did not wish to exercise, and which in many cases they are called upon to discharge under the authority of the Board of Education or the Board of Health, or some other bureaucratic institution in London. I say that when the Bill goes into Committee I shall make sure that. Clause 1 deals clearly with the power that it is proposed to put upon the Board of Health in relation to local authorities.

Mr. MACLEAN: The few words which I want to say merely in criticism of the last speaker who, I understand, intends to cross the Floor of the House and to join the party opposite. Judged by the speech he has just delivered he will be a worthy ornament of that party. The statement that he is going to put down an Amendment in order to clarify the issue that is in dispute on Clause 1, seems to place him on rather a higher pedestal than that upon which one would naturally look for him. The clarification of the Clause is promised, but the hon. Member cannot see that the Clause as it stands states that the power which he believes is to be imposed on the local authorities is qualified by the very words that he has read out, namely, that the Board may "proscribe" the particular "disease" from which individuals are suffering, and the local authorities prescribe the "persons" who in their opinion, etc.

Mr. STURROCK: It is diseases, not persons.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member does not seem to have read the Clause. It states perfectly clearly "the persons who are suffering" from the disease. I want to make one remark with regard to the former Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland (Captain Elliot), who has been attacking the Secretary for Scotland and the present Under-Secretary for Health for not getting money from the national funds to assist the local authorities. The point that the hon. and gallant Member made was that he had been endeavouring to obtain that assistance while he held office, and intended bringing forward a proposal similar to this, but owing to the niggardliness of the Tory Government, of which he was a member, he could not bring forward this proposal. Does he appreciate what that means and what it will convey to the people outside? He admits that people have been dying from this disease.

Captain ELLIOT: No

Mr. MACLEAN: Then there is no necessity for this Bill? The hon. and gallant Member admitted that people were suffering from the disease. He must admit, therefore, that people have died from the disease of diabetes, and they must have died because of the niggardliness of the Government of which he was a member.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not intend to prolong the Debate and so I do not wish to reply to all the questions put to me. If a hack bench Member on this side of the House had prolonged the Debate when the Government was anxious to get the Bill through, it would have been regarded as an instance of disregard of the objects which the Government sought to put forward.

Mr. MACLEAN: That comes very well from a member of a Government which held up the purpose of this Bill for over six months.

Mr. STURROCK: Who is holding it up now?

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. and gallant Member spoke from the Front Bench and the views he was expressing must have been expressed as those of a member of the Front Bench Opposition. We must take it, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member and his Government have held up the purpose of this Bill for close upon six months, because they have been too mean to give money nationally for the assistance of local authorities which are willing to put this treatment into operation. That is the point which I rose to make. I trust that when the hon. and gallant Member goes back to Glasgow to speak in Kelvingrove he will be very clear in explaining to the electors that some people in Glasgow have died within the past six months as a result of the meanness of the Government of which he was a member.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As hon. Members know, the Bill is merely a repetition or the Financial Resolution which has already been discussed. It is confined to the narrow financial proposition which gives an additional benefit of £39 a year in the case of a single individual and £78 a year in the
case of a married couple over and above the scale of allowance applicable under the former Old Age Pension system That, in a single sentence, is the beginning and the end of the Bill, and I respectfully ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I have informed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that I want to put a few points to him. I have had a communication, which I have shown to the hon. Gentleman, from an important body which for a long time has been dealing with the question of old age pensions. I think that most hon. Members are familiar with that body. It is called the National Conference on Old Age Pensions, and its chairman was the well-known medical man, Sir Thomas Oliver, and its secretary, a very enthusiastic secretary, was Mr. Dennison, of Newcastle-on-Tyne. I suppose that there has been no more active organisation in connection with old age pensions than this particular committee, which, during the last few years, has unceasingly endeavoured to advocate the case of the old age pensioners. They have written to me to-day and, as I have informed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, they are rather disappointed with the proposals of this Bill. The communication says:
The National Conference will be disappointed, particularly in view of the many promises given by the Labour party and the Government now in power to do the right thing for the aged poor.
Many hon. Members, and I daresay the Financial Secretary to the Treasury himself, share the disappointment that the Government have not been able to go much further than they have gone. I would not particularly complain of their action, because one must have regard to the financial possibilities, but for the statements and promises that they themselves have given. I daresay that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a fair man, will, at any rate, recognise that the complaint which I wish to make is not that the Government have not gone further, but that they have failed to fulfil their promises. If they had not made those promises a good deal of the criticism which can now be directed against them would not have the weight that it has. Many hon. Members at the last General Election had to contend with Labour candidates who gave most definite
pledges in this connection. In my constituency the Labour candidate delivered at every door a leaflet containing a copy of the Resolution which was moved three or four times in this House by members of the Labour party. The leaflet ended by saying that the Labour candidate was in favour of it and that I was against it. That leaflet undoubtedly got many votes for my opponent.
It is a matter of grave complaint that the Government are not fulfilling their pledges in this Bill. Apart from that, it may be said that this is a measure of justice to the old age pensioners of the country. I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies he will deal with the aspect of the matter to which I have referred, and will say fairly and squarely to the House that there is to be no repetition of that sort of conduct. I notice that an hon. Gentleman opposite still does not understand the ground of my complaint. Even if I had made the promise referred to—which I did not—that is no ground for another person breaking his pledge. I hope the Financial Secretary will have regard to that aspect of the matter. People who make pledges and do not fulfil them must not complain if they are severely criticised.
I am not surprised, therefore, at this particular association, not one of the officers of which has any connection with any political party, when they state they are gravely disappointed with the proposals of the Government. I suppose that is solely because they read all the resolutions that were moved and the pledges which were given by hon. Members opposite. A very large number of the old age pensioners themselves will be very disappointed also. Those who cast their votes for Labour Members on the promises which were made have now a right to say that they have been very cruelly deceived. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is a fair thing to say, and I do not know why hon. Members opposite should object. If a person voted for a Labour Member on a distinct promise and pledge that the means limit is going to be removed, and if the Labour party got into office but did not bring forward such a proposal, then the person who cast that vote has serious grounds for complaint. It is idle for hon. Members opposite to say that they are not in power.
They could bring forward their proposals and do their best to fulfil the pledge, and if other Members of the House took the responsibility of rejecting the proposal, then the Government and hon. Members opposite would have done all that they could do as honourable men to fulfil their undertaking. A new doctrine is being put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Lord Privy Seal on Saturday endeavoured to explain away the large number of pledges which have been broken, and expressed the view that nowadays a pledge was fulfilled if it was carried into effect by instalments. That is a curious doctrine, and I wonder how it would commend itself to the old age pensioner, his family, or his friends who voted for Labour at the last election on the strength of a definite pledge in this connection.
It is not so much the fact that the actual proposals themselves represent failure on the part of the Government to carry out, to the best of their ability, the pledges which they gave and for which they got a very handsome return. When you give these pledges and get votes for them and then fail to fulfil them, the votes cannot be taken back again. If a few hon. Members opposite resigned their seats on this question, it would be different, and no doubt a means of straightening things out will be found in due course. I can quite understand that the people who gave their votes for pledges which have not been fulfilled will take an obvious remedy on the next occasion. That does not help the old people who were promised so many things which are not being given to them by this Bill. The Secretary to the National Conference on Old Age Pensions, Mr. Dennison, in the course of this communication says:
I have to-day written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointing out to him a question which it was understood would receive special attention in any proposals he might bring forward, namely, that any assistance in the form of shelter, clothes or food granted by children to their aged parents should not be taken into consideration in any assessment by the pensions officer.
I have no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give a favourable reply to that question this afternoon. He will be able to give it with more authority and no doubt with more satisfaction than I could give it. Another point is raised by the association on which I think there is more difficulty:
Further, no attention has been given to the inflation of the income of the old age pensioners. As you are aware, if an old age pensioner invests his money in the Post Office Savings Bank or any other form of investment and receives less than 5 per cent. interest, his income is inflated to 5 per cent. by the pensions officer. It is held, and I think rightly held, that only the actual income received should be assessed. I should be glad if you press that point.
That is also a point to which the Financial Secretary might address himself, It appears to be very unfair that an old age pensioner who does not actually receive 5 per cent. interest on his savings should have his income assessed by the pensions officer at the rate of 5 per cent. I believe it is a matter of regulation and it is, therefore, all the easier for the Financial Secretary to give us an undertaking that he will make an alteration in that respect and do a minor measure of justice to those concerned. Another matter, raised, I think, in a question on the Order Paper to-day, is the position of aliens in connection with old age pensions. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to make any alteration which will result in British subjects getting such preference as they can, especially in relation to the question of the number of years during which they require to be domiciled in this country? I hope it will be possible to do something in that direction, and I think very few people would complain if persons born in this country were placed on a proper and just footing in comparison with aliens on this matter. Whilst I understand quite well the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I regret that the Government's present proposals mean a series of interrogatories to old age pensioners concerning means and earnings. I wish to be fair to the Government and it is perfectly true that an advance is made by this Bill, but it should be clearly understood that, even under the Government's proposals, thrift is still penalised. In fact, if a man has shown exceptional qualities of thrift and has saved an amount of money which produces an income above the amount mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is penalised on that account. To my mind, thrift is a, quality which, in this country, wants a good deal of encouraging at the present time. It is regrettable that a man who, by thrift and hard work, has saved a certain
amount of money should be penalised under the Bill.
It is also a matter of regret that inquiries in regard to earnings are still to be addressed to the old age pensioner. I was chairman for many years of the London Old Age Pensions Authority, and while I believe the inspectors endeavour to do their work with tact and discretion, yet, with the best will in the world, all sorts of misunderstandings arise. I hope in time it will be possible to avoid inquiries of that sort. Even although the machinery of administration has been perfected during a good many years of experience, in working, there are no less than 8,000 appeals from the pensions officers as to the income or earnings of old age pensioners. All these cases probably mean the old age pensioner having to go before the committee and submit to cross-examination on his means and earnings. I remember how difficult it was to conduct these investigations with kindness and decency towards the pensioner. I understand the reason for the inquiries, but I regret that they still have to be made. I look forward to the day when it may be possible to increase the present rate of pension and lower the age. In my own constituency men can be discharged from a Government factory at the age of 60, and they have to wait until they are 65 before any recompense comes to them from the State. There is a good case for lowering the age limit, if we could afford to do so.
I agree with the remark which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) made recently, that anyone who looks at all the various types of insurance, calling for so many deductions from the workers' wages and at all the organisations at work in connection with social services, must come to the conclusion that if we are to do anything effective we must make a determined effort in this House to get some comprehensive scheme of dealing with all these matters. It would save a large sum of money. Consider the different organisations and the different sets of officials who administer national health insurance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and all these other schemes, and one is driven to the conclusion that the proposal of this Bill is only to be regarded as a step forward. It is probably a step in the right direction, but I hope it is not leading away
from the idea of a comprehensive scheme. I appreciate what has been done in this Bill, and if so many foolish and rash promises had not been made it would have met with a better reception. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away from that point. In conclusion, I hope the day will not be long distant when in this House we may have a comprehensive scheme which will cover all those old people, as well as other people, and I hope it will give much better terms and conditions than are embodied in this Bill.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I feel a little sorry that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) should have taken up so large a part of his speech in discussing pledges given in this quarter and in that, for though these are, no doubt, very proper matters to consider, they do not form, I think, the principal topic with which the Second Reading debate on this Bill should concern itself. The first and most important fact is that this Bill, though, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, it deals with a proposition within a very narrow limit, undoubtedly is going to improve old age pensions, is going to increase the old age pension of a number of people who at present do not get the full amount, and is going to bring a large number of people within the scope of the scheme who are not within it to-day. To that extent, it seems to me, everybody ought to rejoice heartily that the Government are able to go to this point, though, for my part, I confess to a great feeling of disappointment that it has not been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this present time to go further. The Financial Secretary said the proposition falls within very narrow limits, and it does so for this reason, that the Government have been extremely careful to draw their Financial Resolution in such very strict and confining terms that it is impossible for any private Member of this House to hope to amend this Bill by extending it in the directions in which he might wish to do so. A very different course was taken by those who were the authors of this legislation, for in 1908, when the original Old Age Pensions Bill was introduced by the Government of that day, the Financial Resolution was in the widest possible terms, and there was a really
free opportunity to the House of Commons to mould the Bill upon the basis of a much wider Resolution.
I desire to say a word or two on the subject of the removal of the thrift disqualification in this Bill, and the first observation that I should like to make is this People sometimes speak as though the reason why you must try to remove the thrift disqualification on old age pensions is because, as long as there is a thrift disqualification, it operates as an actual discouragement to thrift. For my part, I doubt very much whether that is a true analysis of the position. I do not think that a disqualification on the ground of savings in actual practice operates as a discouragement to thrift. What it does is that it operates as a very unfair penalty upon thrift, and it creates a very widespread and a very natural sense of injustice. It is not true, I think, that the disqualification for receiving an old age pension, so far as that disqualification arises from the fact that the person has exercised thrift and has saved money, is at all likely, or to any serious degree is likely, to cause people to be reckless and spendthrift who otherwise would not be, because, of course, the individual, as a rule, who is exercising thrift exercises that thrift long before the age of 70. He exercises it, at any rate, in early middle life, and it is not the case, I apprehend, with ordinary men and women in any walk of life that they abandon their natural instincts to be thrifty, if they are thrifty, merely because they realise that, if they are thrifty and 70 years of age come upon them, they may find thereby that they may lose an old age pension.
Therefore, I think it is as well to be clear that the real reason why it is so important to get rid of the disqualification of thrift in an old age pension system is not really because it is calculated to undermine the moral litre of people or prevent thrifty people from exercising thrift, but because it creates a very real injustice. It is because it takes people who, in every other respect, are exactly like one another—the same age and the same circumstances—and it says to the person who has been spendthrift and reckless, "We will reward you with an old age pension," and it says to the man who is exactly the same except that he has been thrifty and careful, "Since you have been thrifty and careful, an old age
pension shall not be given to you." The origin of the proposition that old age pensions were going to destroy the bent of thrift in the British people is to be found in the Conservative party. One of the worst things about the Conservative party is that they know nothing about the history of their own party. I see, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) opposite, and he will remember very well the lead which he gave on that occasion when he voted against old age pensions.

Sir H. CRAIK: I voted against old age pensions because they were then introduced and passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), with this penalty upon thrift, with which I did not agree and against which I spoke.

Sir J. SIMON: I did not say in the least that I was reproaching the right hon. Gentleman, but I was only saying that the Conservative party forget their own history in the matter. There were in the Parliament of 1908, I think, 163 Conservative Members. In fact, the Conservative party were about the size which the Liberal party are now. Of those 163 Conservative Members, 140 refused to vote for the Third Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill of 1908. Let me add at once that 12 of them did vote for it, and 11 of them went further and voted against it, and I think we may safely see what the reason was—it is well to learn from history and experience—if we remind ourselves that in the House of Lords, which at that time, at any rate, was mainly representative of the Conservative point of view, an Amendment was carried which was to terminate pensions by the end of 1915, and the Bill in that form was sent back to this House of Commons, and it was found necessary for the Liberal majority in this House to refuse to accept that Amendment and to pass the Bill without it.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. and learned Member forgets that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) stated that the old age pensions movement was due more to the inspiration of the Conservative statesman, the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, than to any other man.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that, if you want to find the origin of the fallacy that the reason why the thrift disqualification is objectionable is because it destroys the sense of thrift in the British people, you will find it in the ridiculous view adopted by the Conservative party in 1908, and the best of all illustrations of that is that the distinguished leader of that party in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne, in those very debates on the Old Age Pensions Bill, said that that Bill was:
a Measure which we regard with great apprehension, which we fear may have far reaching and disastrous effects upon the future of this country,
and he described it as follows:
This Measure, I am mach afraid, is one which will weaken the moral fibre of the nation and diminish the self-respect of our people.
I venture to say that time has, at any rate, proved this, that old age pensions do not weaken the moral fibre of any people, and the only reason why it is so important to get rid of the thrift disqualification has nothing in the world to do with the moral fibre of the nation. It is due to the fact that it operates as a penalty upon people who have been thrifty, and it creates thereby a, very grievous sense of injustice and inequity. What, the Government have done in this Bill—I say it without the slightest desire to cavil or to criticise—is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but I do not think it has been observed that the Government's proposal not only does nothing whatever to get rid of one of the greatest existing objections to the system, namely, the system of inquisition and inquiry as to poor people's small means, but it is actually going to increase that inquisition.
Let me just point out that, as things are at this moment, speaking broadly, an old man who has the magnificent sum of 10s. a week, and no more, may get a 10s. a week addition by way of pension, and as long as his receipts from all sources do not exceed 20s., he may hope to get some small sum, though it will only be Is if he has 19s., but it is not material to ask where he gets his small income from. It makes no difference at this moment whether the 10s. or the 15s. is the result of a gratuity, or of a saving, or the result of a little odd job on of a contribution
from a son or a daughter, or from any other source of income, but the moment that the Government start this new principle, that you are not going to count against the old age pensioner a sum up to 15s. a week as long as that sum is not earned, it becomes, for the first time, necessary to inquire in many cases, not only "How much is the old person's income?" but "Where does he get it from?" and that, I venture to think, will be found to involve a still more aggravating inquisition than there is at the present time.

Mr. CLIMIE: They do ask where it comes from now.

Sir J. SIMON: The only reason why they sometimes ask where it comes from is because they want to test the truth of the total, but there is now going to be a new inquiry altogether. Let me put this example: There are plenty of old people, servants of municipalities, servants of private firms or of private individuals, who, as a matter of fact, are quite past their work, and who, none the less, are given whatever it may be, and they are not put in the position of being told, "You are past your work; you can have that, and you can do nothing for it." But it constantly happens that those old people have the satisfaction of being told, in the case of an old gardener, for instance, "It is a fine day; come and sweep up the leaves. I have my new gardener in, but I am glad to see you here on a fine day," and that old man takes a pride in the fact that there is something still, in a sense, which he is doing and for which he is being paid, whatever it may be, say, 30s., not really because he is earning it. It is not what he is worth at all, but it does not matter, and the decent employer—and it applies to other people besides individuals—is glad to put it that way, because it relieves an old man or an old woman of the very unhappy feeling that old age has made them incapable of work. See what this new scheme will do. It will now be necessary, for the first time, for that man or woman to come forward and say, "I want to prove that I am not really worth 30s. I am not really doing any work for it. I am merely a person worth, it may be, 4s. or 5s. for half-a-day's work now and again, and the rest is charity and gratuity." As soon as he proves that
25s. out of his 30s. is gratuity, and as soon as he goes through the indignity of that process, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Very well, then, I will not count that against you; you are not earning it."
The Government are now setting up a new kind of inquiry, in village life as well as elsewhere, in which it will be necessary for these old people in many eases to prove that, though they are receiving, after 70 years of age, from, a former employer, it may be, so much under the name of being kept on and having wages, it really is in the nature of a gratuity. Anyone in this House who has been familiar, as I was some years ago, with the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act, knows that the point I am putting is a really effective point. I remember very well, as a young man at the Bar, this question often arose under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the County Court. When the employer is continuing, after an accident, to pay his workman the same sum of money as he paid before, is he, on that account, to avoid compensation? Is it not the truth that, owing to the accident, the workman has less earning capacity, and you have to have inquiries to estimate what is the real earning capacity of the man, and what amount is the result of charity or gratuity, and what amount wages.
It seems to me that, if you leave things as they are going to be left now, although I quite agree this is an improvement on the law as it stands, you are not only going to preserve all these irritating and ignominious inquiries, but you are actually going to increase them. The House will observe this very odd consequence. When you are dealing with Income Tax, the income that is earned is the meritorious income, and has an advantage, but when it comes to tile old age pension, any sum that is earned is a disqualification and is penalised. Of course, there is a theory behind this which I can understand. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced his proposal, not only told us that he had not got enough money to remove the thrift disqualification altogether, and to make old age pensions universal, but he went further, and said:
I do not think it right to do anything to encourage earnings by individuals above 70 years of age."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT 25th June, 1924; col. 474, Vol 175.]
[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I would venture respectfully to urge my hon. Friends above the Gangway not to cheer too readily. Let us get down to what is the human factor. There is nothing of trade unionism involved in this. Take the human factor. There is an old couple, each of them over 70, and each entitled to 10s. a week pension. It may be that the old man has also some little additional resource. These two old people can live on their old age pensions, with the husband's additional source of income. The old man dies. Is the Labour party really going to say to his widow, "If you, in your cottage, do a little needlework, if you earn a few shillings in tins way or that, our proposition is, in the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think it right to do anything to encourage earnings by individuals above 70'"? Surely that is quite wrong. What is really happening in connection with old age pensions is that an actual discouragement is being effected, a discouragement which, I think, is quite unnecessary, and which, in many cases, is very hard. There have been many cases of widows who have found that, without the husbands pension, the single pension for the home is not sufficient unless supplemented, and here you are saying, "If you dare supplement that income, if anyone is able to give you casual work to help that income up to a certain point, the old age pension policy of the Labour Government is that you will lose your old age pension."
I do not agree in the least with the view the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer takes on this point. I agree with him in much, and have sincere admiration for his efforts for sound finance, but I altogether disagree if his proposition is that, even apart from the financial necessities of the case, it is wrong in principle to allow or encourage people to earn for themselves after 70 years of age. You may perfectly well trust the trade unions to see to it that this is not going to be an effective under-cutting of rates, and you will find plenty of people who do not belong to the Labour party supporting them. That is not the practical point. The practical point is whether the old man or the old woman is to be allowed to supplement the old age pension, the old woman by doing lace or needlework, and the old man gardening, or the like? It is a cruel thing to say to these old people,
"Our proposition is that we ought to do everything we can to discourage you from earning after 70 years of age." I know the inquiries which have to be made are inevitably bound up with a means limit. For my part, I do not believe there is any way of avoiding this inquisition, except by getting rid of the means limit. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Income Tax limit."] I have gone into it as well as I can with my small amateur knowledge, and, as far as I can investigate it, my own view—and I believe it is confirmed by the Treasury authorities—is that there is not any clear and simple way out by taking the Income Tax limit. What happens in regard to the income Tax limit is merely that an individual, who takes the view that his income is within the Income Tax limit, is at liberty to fill up an application form, and claim exemption or abatement, but it still remains necessary to find out whether it is true. I am sorry to say, even Income Tax payers sometimes rather exaggerate their misfortunes. The consequence is you do not get a way out simply by saying, "I will substitute for £50 a year the sum of £140'; or whatever it may be. There is only one way to get rid of these extremely distressing and irritating inquiries, and that is by saying, as many people have said in times past, that, as a matter of fact, we must get rid of the means limit altogether.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many on this side held the same view in 1909?

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and, perhaps, I may count him as a warm supporter of what I am saying now. I have a suggestion to make, but let me first point out to the Labour party that what I am saying now has been said with the greatest emphasis by some of those in whom they put their greatest trust. I am not going to quote election manifestoes, but let me call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the language that was used in the original Debate of 1908 by no less a person than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was discussing the scheme by which the old age pension was made smaller and smaller, until it finally disappeared, because, as the result of inquiry and investigation, it was found the applicant had got a limited amount
of other means. Speaking on the 9th July, 1908, on the original Old Age Pensions Bill, he said:
The demand of the working classes of this country is for a universal pension of not less than 5s. a week, to begin at an age not higher than 65.
He went on:
Does he think "—
he was addressing the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—
that any self-respecting member of the working classes, a respectable working man with a private income of 10s. or 12s. a week, would submit to the inquisition prescribed by this Bill for the paltry sum of 1s. a week, and make a weekly journey to the Post Office in order to get it? I think know enough of the working classes of this country to warrant me in believing that no member of them is going to take advantage of that part of the Bill in order to get a pension under such circumstances.
I ask hon. Members to contrast that view, formed and expressed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when old age pensions first became an actual legislative proposition on the Floor of this House, with the inquisition involved in determining the means of an applicant and adjusting his pension accordingly. That inquisition in practice will be found not only to be resented, but intolerable, and I do not suppose there is a Member of this House who has not had cases within his own experience and constituency. There is no necessity to make party capital out of this. We are all honestly, I believe, out to help the old people from being put to distressing inquiries, because what does the inquiry of a pension officer mean? I do not doubt he is an honest servant of the public, and does his work with as much consideration as he can, but it means inquiring from neighbours, and inquiring about gifts and gratuities. An illustration was given by the present Colonial Secretary in the Debate last year, in referring to a case of application for a pension. He said:
The authorities came along and said, There is so much value attached to the potatoes and the greens that you are growing on your allotment, and we must deduct it.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1923; col. 1189. Vol. 160.]
There is nothing in this Bill which is going to stop that, and I do think the House of Commons, before reading this Bill a Second time, should follow the view
mentioned by my right hon. Friend just now, and ask themselves whether it is not possible to contemplate really making old age pensions independent of people's means. There are two objections raised, and there is great force in both of them. There is the objection, first of all, that if you did that, a great number of people who have abundant private means would take the pension; and there is, secondly, the view that, as a matter of fact, it would be wasting a great deal of public money, and, therefore, the taxpayer would suffer severely and unnecessarily. I regard both those objections as objections of serious importance, and I want to put to the House some considerations with regard to each of them. First, take the proposition that if you made these old age pensions independent of any inquiry about means, the result would be that you would get people even of abundant wealth taking the pension. Would you?
Let us take a recent practical test. Take the case of separation allowance. The separation allowance that was granted during the War to a private or non-commissioned officer was a separation allowance granted to wife or mother, as the case might be, and had nothing in the world to do with whether the person was rich or poor. There were plenty of people who were in such a position that they never dreamed of asking for the separation allowance for their family relations, and I do not believe that what you may call the more fortunate classes would, as a practical matter, put in for and take, a pension of this sort involving application to the Post Office, the filling up of forms, and all the rest of it. Although, of course it is true that, from the Treasury point of view, the really serious loss of money would not arise because of a very limited number of very rich people, their real difficulty, no doubt, is with regard to the people in the middle position, who are much more numerous. But as I began by saying, I do not believe, if you made Old Age Pensions independent of means, you would find that people over 70 would, as a matter of course, take them. Should I be doing the present Lord Chancellor, or the Lord President of the Council, any injustice if I suggested that even although over 70 years of age, they would not apply for their Old Age Pensions? I do not believe it would have the result that all sorts of people, who have no right to the
Old Age Pension on the ground of necessity, would put in a claim because of the technical right.
7.0 P.M.
I have a second point, and, if I may, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to consider it. I have no doubt at all that he, with his very great competence and skill, and his Treasury advisers, have considered this from many points of view, but may I respectfully ask if he has considered this suggestion? I put it forward with very great hesitation, but I feel it is so important to get rid of this investigation about means that the House will listen for a moment even perhaps to a farfetched suggestion. Would not it be possible to devise a scheme something on these lines, that when a man reaches the age of 70, and he is in circumstances which do not make it any part of his intention to apply for a pension of 10s. a week at the Post Office, he should be at liberty, under proper regulations, to execute a disclaimer, under proper guarantees and securities, and that he should receive from the Treasury an acknowledgment of his disclaimer. Having done that, he would be committing an offence if he made an attempt to get his pension. I suggest that by getting that disclaimer this result may be secured. When a mart dies, and his estate comes under review by the Revenue authorities for Death Duty purposes if in the case of people who are over 70 when they die, the estate is above a certain figure, then unless his executors produce the acknowledgment of his disclaimer, you might get from that estate the old age pension, and proper interest upon it.
It may sound a little fantastic; new things always do, but it is well worth while to see if there be not some means by which we can get rid of the means limit, and at the same time secure that an abuse of public money shall be done away with. It seems to me that the scheme would work cut like this. You have a man—say, a retired Judge—who may, for one reason or another, have accumulated a substantial fortune. I do not believe he is the least likely to put in for his old age pension, and I think that if he were given this inducement he certainly would not. He would disclaim it, and would have the record, and the authorities, when they reviewed his estate
at death, if they found his estate was more than a certain figure, would say that, unless it was proved that he did not take his old age pension, the old age pension must be returned out of the estate as from the age of 70, with interest upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the case of the Judge, what old age pension are you referring to?"] I am taking anyone whose income may be such as would not make it reasonable to take advantage of a pension.
There is an objection that it might lead to people trying to get rid of their property so that when they died it would appear that their estate was not more than so much. The answer is that they do it now. A large part of the time of the lawyers of Lincoln's Inn is taken up in settling the forms of arrangement in which it is hoped that Death Duties will be at a lower rate, because the total at death will be smaller. It is ridiculous to think that anybody is going to alter his practice in that respect because of this trifling sum. The more serious difficulty you would have to consider is how to deal with the people who, though they may have a substantial income in the later years of their lives—take, for instance, the highest ranks of the Civil Service, men who may have a retiring pension of £2,000 or £3,000 a year—may, none the less, leave a comparatively small estate. No doubt that case presents some difficulty, but I respectfully suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that unless this kind of plan has already been investigated, it would be worth a great deal to find a means by which we can get rid altogether of this inquiry as to what people's means are, and devise some other system by which, if necessary, we get the money hack again from the estates of those who never should have claimed the old age pension.
The Government have been able to do this little bit. It is the smallest fraction of what many of their supporters thought they would be able to do. It is a, small fraction of what Liberals, like myself, declare ourselves as most anxious to do. But I look with the gravest suspicion on such things as selecting earnings as the things to be penalised. I regret that the Government should actually increase, by this proposal, the inquiries which have to be made to find out what the circumstances of these poor old people are, and
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will abandon the obstacle that he feels it his duty to put in the way of the poor old man or the poor old woman, earning, maybe, a few shillings It saves many old people a feeling that they are past work and adds something very necessary to the small pittance they get under the pension, and it would be a satisfaction to know that the Government, though they cannot do more at the moment, and have not done nearly enough, will do something to meet this case.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: I must say that in the Old Age Pensions Bill we have some good points. The Bill admits that it is a good thing to encourage thrift, and it is a good thing for people to accumulate and to invest their money, and to draw the interest on their investments. That is, I think, sound; and the next point is that the Bill admits that the old age pension should be given to those who need it, and not to those who do not need it. Another thing I find to praise in the Bill is that it recognises that, while on the one hand there should be great sympathy and consideration for those who are suffering the double disability of being both old and poor, at the same time it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to regard the national finances as a whole, and to consider how much can be devoted even to such an excellent object as old age pensions, without casting an undue burden upon the large number of the masses of the people who are, perhaps, not very much younger, and are not very much better off than the old age pensioners.
I must admit, having paid my tribute, that I am disappointed with the Bill—very disappointed. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Simon), and I think that a much better and stronger Bill could be presented, and would be passed through the House with the consent of all parties. I think the Government have spoiled the ship for a ha'porth of tar, and, if the House will bear with me, I will very shortly follow the trend of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech, and ask whether it would not be possible, even now, to improve the Bill. The difficulty is, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that it perpetuates and intensifies the necessity
for these meticulous and obnoxious investigations into the means of the aged poor. I do not go so far as to say that no investigation should take place, and I do not think that anybody should come to the State and say, "I claim a pension of so much a week, but I refuse to give any information as to my financial position." At the same time, everything reasonable should be done to render these investigations as few and as little obnoxious as possible. I also find no trace of anything having been done for those who have no benefactors and who when they come to the age of 70, have often outlived the majority of their friends. There are, and there must be in the future, many old people who really have no one to turn to. They may have had bad luck, ill-fortune, ill-health, or they may be in this position through over-generous self-sacrifice, or through poverty. I have figures here, if anybody wishes to ask any questions, to show how people are penalised under the Bill. I want to ask whether it is not possible, even now, with the goodwill of the Government, to do something which might be so arranged as to cost very little more, or perhaps no more, than the sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set aside this year for the purposes of the Bill.
I want to press on the consideration of the Chancellor to the Exchequer the total abolition of those graduated payments which are the cause of so many anomalies. The abolition of the lot is not going to cost much. If hon. Members will turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 20th June, they will find that, in March last, out of 916,771 pensioners, only 62,920 were affected by these gradations. That means that if these reductions were swept away altogether, and the 62,000 old age pensioners were granted he full 10s. per week, it would only cost £13,057 per week or £679,016 per year. At the same time as you get rid of the deductions you will do away with all the petty but expensive inquiries which now have to be made. The total net loss to the Treasury in making this great sweep of all these gradations will only be about £500,000 yearly, and if every one of the 63,000 pensioners were given the full 10s. per week instead of, as may be, Is., 2s., 3s. or 4s. weekly, the cost would be relatively small, while the advantages would be very great not only in the matter of admini-
stration, but in the gain to the old age pensioners themselves. It would do away with all unpleasant inquiries.
Providing that all the old age pensioners received the full 10s. per week, then I think it would be quite right and proper to give a special extra thrift allowance somewhat on the lines of the thrift allowance mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If a man came forward and said, "It is true that my income, as calculated, exceeds £49 17s. 6d. per year, but any income over that limit is due to my thrift, ' then I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say, "We will give you an extra special allowance, and if after the deduction of that allowance your actual income is less than £49 17s. 6d., then you shall have the old age pension in full." The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his White Paper that he estimated, under the operation of this scheme, to bring in 150,000 persons who are not now old age pensioners. If all these were treated under my suggestion, and were declared entitled to the pension of 10s. per week, it would cost £3,900,000 a year. If, on the other hand, the allowance was 7s. 6d. a week, the cost would be £2,925,000 a year, and if it were only 5s. a week the expense would be £1,950,000 a year. I hope that the Government will at all events consider whether such a plan as I have roughly outlined would not give greater satisfaction to the aged poor of the country and greater general satisfaction than the scheme embodied in this Bill. No doubt there might be some cases in which the Government scheme would better suit individuals, but the great mass of old age pensioners would benefit more from my scheme, I submit, and would be very grateful for it. I agree it might be impossible for any private Member to transform the Government scheme without the really benevolent sympathy of the Government, but, speaking on behalf of the aged poor, as I do, I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the scheme I have suggested.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am gratified with the extent to which the Government have gone in dealing with this important question of old age pensions, but I think the need of these people is so urgent that we might reasonably have expected the
Government to put them into a position which, unfortunately, they have not elected to do. There are some points in the scheme which require elucidation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 25th June last, stated that in the calculation of means
the inclusion of gifts from sons or relatives or employers has given rise to a good deal of irritation and a good deal of indignation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1924; col. 473, Vol. 175.]
We would like to know if this Bill really safeguards claimants for pensions in the matter of relatives providing them with housing accommodation. The relative may say to the old age pensioner, "We want to try and help you, and we would like to have you live with us." If that arrangement is carried out it really ought not to be regarded as part of the income of the old age pensioner, and we want to know if, in the new scheme put forward by the Government, such a matter as that is shut out from the inquiry as to the assessing of the pensioner's means. This process of assessment of means has given rise to a great deal of irritation, and in this matter I suggest a reasonable step might be taken by the Government so to safeguard the claimant for a pension that he or she shall not have to undergo an inquisition into the assistance afforded by a relative in the way of providing housing accommodation. The Government might give otherwise a more liberal scale of pension than they have yet done. We are proceeding on the lines of endeavouring to relax the existing limitations, and I want to make certain as to the position on the point I have raised. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is always so helpful in clearing up matters of this kind, and whose work at the Treasury is appreciated in all parts of the House, will tell us exactly whether the pensioner is safeguarded on this particular point of assistance from relatives who may seek to help him or her by providing housing accommodation.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I do not propose, with all respect, to follow the points made by the last speaker. I want to offer just one or two observations, but I do not wish to detain the House at any length on the Bill now before us. With a great deal said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week I cordially agree,
and, in particular, I agree that we must rule out universal old age pensions on the ground that the cost is prohibitive. I agree also that as between means resulting from various kinds of thrift no discrimination is possible. That was a point very strongly made by the Chancellor, and I respectfully and cordially agree. Above all, I agree that the whole problem of social insurance is at present more or less in a chaotic state. By the proposals which the Government have put before us they have placed a good many of us, who have given special thought and consideration to this matter, in a rather cruel dilemma. I doubt whether Members in any quarter of the House really like these proposals, but we hesitate to look a gift horse in the mouth.
All sections agree, I think, that the present position in regard to old age pensions is intolerable and indefensible. We feel that in the first place because at the present time very inadequate benefits are enjoyed at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. In the second place, we hold the present position to be intolerable because the system is not only costly but irritating to the recipients, chiefly on the ground, which has been so largely explored this afternoon, that the whole system is inquisitorial in character. In the third place, we hold it to be intolerable because the present system does unfairly, as most of us think, and injuriously differentiate between the thrifty and the non-thrifty recipients. In the first place, I said that at present these old people are enjoying inadequate benefits at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) first introduced the old age pensions scheme in this House in 1908 he put the cost of the scheme at £6,000,000 a year as a total, though it was admitted that the cost would rapidly rise to £7,500,000. The whole House, the whole country, is aware that to-day it is costing £24,000,000 a year.
What, as a matter of fact, does this enormous expenditure secure to the aged poor? It secures, as the House knows, a maximum of 10s. a week if the means obtaining by the recipients do not exceed £26 5s. per year. It secures 1s. per week where the total means do not exceed £49 17s. 6d. That means that the
aged man or the aged woman, after, perhaps, half a century of tail, must not have more than £1 a week. That is an inadequate benefit secured at an enormous cost. Compare this with the figures given last week as to the cost of an indoor pauper at the present time, which is 26s. 50½d. per week, or the cost of a criminal in penal servitude, which is £ 2s. 2d.! We are treating the aged poor far worse than we are treating either the criminal or the pauper. In the second place, I suggest that the concomitant of granting a pension is unduly inquisitorial and, in a sense, impertinent. How many applicants for pensions were there last year according to an answer by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last week? It was then stated that the annual number of applicants for old age pensions is 167,967, and that those who, on one ground or another, were rejected, or whose pensions were revoked, numbered 33,155 persons. Of these about 7,000 persons were rejected on the ground of age, and about 12,000 others on the ground of means.
I want the House for a moment to try and imagine what these figures—these cold figures—mean to the aged poor of this country; and, beyond that, mean to the cost of administration. The cost of administration to-day is nearly £5 per head of the applicants for pensions, and nearly £1 per head of the actual pensioners. In the third place, I suggest that the present system is unfair and injurious in its differentiation between the thrifty and unthrifty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)—who I am sorry not to see at the moment in his place—said the real point was the penalisation of thrift. I agree. I have very often heard it said from a certain section of the House that thrift is not a virtue, but that, on the contrary, it is in the nature of a social crime. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] Yes, I have often heard that observation inside and outside this House; but I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with that sentiment. On the contrary, he confessed not long ago in this House that he was staggered and obviously pleased by the enormous amount of saving on the part of the workers of this country. He gave the House some interesting figures,
which show that if thrift is a crime there are, happily, a good many criminals.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed us that more than £200,000,000 is now annually saved by relatively poor people in this country. The friendly societies alone collect £9,000,000 a year. The collecting societies collect about £7,000,000 a year. The trade unions collect for their benefit funds £8,000,000 a year—and here may I add my respectful testimony to the admirable work they are doing from the point of view of the benefit funds. The industrial insurance companies collect, in premium income, over £31,500,000. This gives us a total of about £55,500,000 of savings by non-State-aided insurance societies and agencies. In addition to that, you have a sum of about £160,000,000 a year which comes in through the savings banks, through the trustee savings banks, through the railway savings banks, the co-operative societies, the building societies, and the National Savings Certificates. That is a very remarkable achievement, and, as I say, if this is to be accounted a crime there are, happily, many criminals.
What do the proposals of the Government in dealing with this problem actually amount to? In the first place, they will not help the national Exchequer. The method is one which will not diminish the charge upon the Exchequer, but will increase it, avowedly, at once, by £4,000,000 and before long, we were told, by £7,000,000 a year. Do the proposals give us in return for that anything in the nature of an adequate provision for old age? I am suggesting that that is not the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley showed that the inquisition as to means, so far from being mitigated by the proposals of this Bill, actually will be more meticulous than ever. Take any of the illustrations which were given last week in the White Paper, and apply this test: Will these proposals encourage the people either to increase their industry or their savings? They will, unfortunately, not encourage them in industry, for industry under this Bill is a crime for people over 70. In respect to thrift, they will help only those who are thrifty to the extent of £39 a year.
With great respect I submit that the whole difficulty of the means limit is in-
soluble except in one way. On that point Sir William Beveridge—and there is no higher authority in this country—has said that we have got into an insoluble difficulty to-day from which we can escape only in one way. I want, before I sit down, to suggest that we shall never satisfactorily solve this problem, we shall never get rid of the difficulties which attach to the means limit until we make our old age pension system an integral part of a very much larger scheme, and until we get the whole thing on to a contributory basis. I very much regret that it was not on that basis long ago.
My point, and the only point that I want to-night, to put before the House is the one to which I have already referred—that public social services ought not to be regarded in isolation, and that this problem will not be solved until we envisage it as a whole. Till then we shall never discover appropriate remedies. In what direction are these remedies to be looked for? I suggest that they will only be fouund in some comprehensive scheme of national insurance which will cover all the contingencies of industrial life, which will bring into one single system national health insurance, unemployment insurance, compensation for accidents, old age pensions, widow's pensions, mother's pensions, and perhaps other benefits as well. Speaking on one of the first days of the Session, I outlined to the House the scheme which I had in mind. I had hoped before now to be enabled to lay that scheme in detail before the House. My own main objection to the proposals which the Government have brought forward in this Old Age Pensions Bill is that they offer no satisfactory solution of the problem which they attack. On the contrary they are actually increasing the difficulties, and those difficulties are neither few nor insignificant which lie in the way of the solution which I regard as the only possible and permanent solution of this problem. It was said the other day that this new scheme of old age pensions would increase the difficulties to be surmounted in establishing a contributory system. But we are not now in a position to look a gift horse in the mouth. I am not prepared, therefore, to oppose the proposal made in this Bill, but I want to safeguard my position by saying here and now that the scheme
will not advance, but rather hinder and retard, the only possible solution of this problem as a whole.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the narrow compass and limited lines of this reform. The discussion which has followed must have made him wish that he had taken a larger vision and a broader outlook and brought in a more comprehensive scheme, because there never was a time when in all sections of the House a greater desire was shown to do something on broader lines. The speech made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down indicates that in all sections of the House, and even in those sections which originally opposed the granting of old age pensions, there has been a revulsion of feeling, and that which in the past was denounced has now been received with acclamation. Consequently I regret that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and brought in a more comprehensive scheme. They often tell us that they have not the power. How do they know they have not the power. At any rate, they have the power to try and test the House in order to see whether there is a progressive majority in this House willing to carry out a larger scheme.
As a matter of fact they have not given the House an opportunity of declaring itself on this question, and they are legislating, not only behind public opinion, but behind the general feeling of the House, which is in favour of a large and more comprehensive Measure. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the failings of the non-contributory system. I cannot share his view with regard to pensions as they exist now for people over 70, and I think it would be a mistake to alter that which is already part and parcel of our system. I do think, however, that between the ages of 65 and 70 it would be very desirable to graft on to our existing system a contributory system whereby the men who have become old and worn in service might have leisure at an earlier age than 70 years of age. That would not only relieve distress, but it would relieve the unemployment problem by taking off the ranks of the unemployed many men of middle and younger age who are now drawing unemployment benefit. If they could receive
a pension at 65 more of these men could find work in the ranks of industry.
I want to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Reference has been made to the inquisitorial system, and I want to ask whether it is too late, even within the narrow limits of this Bill, for the Government to reconsider the method which at present is adopted of calculating the means of pensioners. Reference has been made to the fact that it is not actual income that is ascertained, but a hypothetical income, and that is a very unfair basis. The first £25 capital value is regarded as free so far as income is concerned. The next £375 is calculated at one-twentieth, or 5 per cent., and above that it is calculated at 10 per cent. Surely that is at variance with the actual facts of the case. These people who have saved are people who are somewhat cautious as to their investments. They do not seek large returns, and do not keep it in a stocking, but put it in the savings bank, or into some other security where a small return is found.
I had a case before me the other day of a farm worker who had lived 50 years in one house, and who, through hard work on a small holding, had saved over £600. Because he had saved that money his application for a pension was turned down owing to the hypothetical method of calculation which has been adopted, which showed that he had an income barring him from receiving an old age pension. I quite admit that the Bill which the Government have introduced, and the limit of £39 which they allow, will remove the hardship in that particular case, but it does not remove the hardship in other cases. What is the position to-day? Even when this Bill is passed, if you maintain your present system of ascertaining the income of the individual, you will still have the case of a man who has the good fortune to save £900 being treated unjustly. On the first £25 nothing is taken into account. On the next £375 the amount is 5 per cent., making £18 15s.; and the next £500 is calculated at 10 per cent., which is £50, thus making up a hypothetical income of £68 15s.
I submit that is penalising thrift in the very worst form. You take this fictitious income, and then you say because the man is getting 10 per cent., on a part of his savings he is not to receive any
old age pension, or it has to be reduced proportionately. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not yet too late to modify the methods whereby the income is ascertained, and to say that at any rate those who have saved and have been thrifty shall not be penalised by being credited with a much larger income than they can possibly receive or are receiving. I hope it may be possible for the Government to have regard to this very real hardship which still continues, and I trust they will bring in Amendments to the Bill so that a more just and equitable method of ascertaining the income may be arrived at.
With regard to the inquisitorial system; surely if in dealing with the Income Tax payments it is sufficient to ask the individual to make a return, and check it if necessary, the same principle might be applied to the old age pensioner. The pensioner might be asked to make a return of his income, and a certain amount of checking might be done later on, but I think it is a wrong thing to have all this inquisition into the means of the pensioner, because it is treating those who have the least money worse than those who have the larger sum. I hope the Government will realise that the sense of the House is in advance of their tame and halting measures, and they ought to test the House on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] It will be time for hon. Members above the Gangway to jeer and sneer when the House has rejected some of their social measures. They are now legislating behind the opinion of the House, and I hope that when they tackle the next social problem they will not be behind, but in advance of the general feeling of the House.

Sir H. CRAIK: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the references made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in the course of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to what happened in 1908 on this question of pensions, and it is astonishing to me to find how many of the phrases and sentiments so well expressed by the right hon. Gentleman were in a feebler manner expressed by me in 1908 in regard to the evils of the inquisitorial system. We have not forgotten the history of our own party on this question. We know it only too well and
in 1908 when the Pensions Bill was being introduced we proclaimed very much those very defects to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley has called attention. The right hon. Gentleman said that the system of old age pensions works unjustly and imposes a most serious and unjust penalty on thrift, but at the same time he does not admit that it discourages thrift. But how can you discourage thrift more effectively than by treating it unjustly because it is thrift? There may be some subtle distinction, but for the life of me I cannot see it.
8.0 P.M.
I do insist, however, that you treat the thrifty pensioner unjustly. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we do treat thrift most unjustly and unfairly, but I do think we discourage it. We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) a wider scheme of contributory pensions. In 1908, rightly or wrongly, we urged that system of contributory pensions, and we said over and over again that we did not desire that it should be based strictly upon actuarial principles. We wished it to be liberal, even lavish, in the assistance and supplement that it would give to contributors, but we urged that the principle of contribution should be established. I remember, too, that we urged at that time that many things might be taken in place of contributions—that service in the Territorial Army, any public service, or any day performed to the nation, might be taken as a substitute for contributions. Do let us, however, in some way or other, have that small contribution which implies a small effort on the part of the contributor, and supplement that to the very highest and most generous degree, regulating it by all the skill that is possible, and guaranteeing it with all the credit of the State, but still allowing a small effort to be made on the part of the contributor.
I remember that a great deal was said at that time about the German contributory system. Many of those who were then in this House, and who, like some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, had their spiritual home in Germany, thought that there might be something in following the example of Germany, but that was set aside. I say now that, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley had the courage
of his opinions, and went into the Lobby against what I consider to be a niggardly system, which does not half sufficiently get rid of these inquisitorial suggestions, I would follow him. The right hon. Gentleman does not have the courage of his opinions, and, although he has denounced as niggardly the policy of the Government in this matter, he is not prepared to follow that up by boldly voting for the wider scheme.

Mr. MILLS: The boy stood on the burning deck!

Sir H. CRAIK: The worst of these interruptions is that they are so obviously unintelligible. If they were clear, they might possibly assist Debate. Instead of regretting the action that we took in 1908, and being ashamed of it, as the right hon. Gentleman says we are—

Sir J. SIMON: I always listen with the greatest respect to what is said by the right hon. Gentleman, who is an old friend of mine, but, really, I was most careful to say that I was quite certain they did not regret it; but let us have it clearly on record—they did vote against old age pensions.

Sir H. CRAIK: We voted against a particular Bill throughout, which we thought was based upon wrong foundations, which we thought very unjust and objectionable in its inquisitorial methods, and because we thought that a simpler and more logical system would have made it possible to get rid of these limitations and make the pensions universal. Now the right hon. Gentleman, who thinks we have been glad to forget our past, has stood up this afternoon and given us a complete scheme of universal pensions, with the safeguards which he suggests would prevent lavish or unprofitable expenditureߞa scheme which, for my own part, I think is worthy of the very greatest consideration, and which I should be very glad to see adopted.

Mr. BARKER: I wish to appeal to the Financial Secretary to give the wage-earners the benefits of this Bill. The idea of taking old men out of the labour market is a very laudable one, especially when you have a million men unemployed; but, before you can take an old man out of the labour market, he must have an income upon which he can live. I submit
that a man cannot live to-day with any degree of decency on an income of 10s. per week plus an old age pension of 10s. Under this Bill, if a man earns 12s. per week, 2s. per week will be taken off his old age pension. If he earns 14s. per week, then 4s. will be taken off his old age pension; if he earns 18s. then 8s. will be taken off his old age pension, and if he earns £1 a week he gets no old age pension whatever. I submit that that is very unjust to the wage-earner. When I read the financial statement issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was filled with consternation. I could not believe it was his intention to treat the wage-earner in this way.
I should like to know, before this Debate closes, what is meant by earnings. Earnings, as they have been interpreted for many years under the Old Age Pensions Act, have been a disgrace to the Government. If a man has a garden, the produce of that garden has been taken as earnings, and his old age pension has been reduced in proportion to the value of the produce of his garden. The same thing has been done with the allotment holder, and with people who have kept a few fowls. The value of the produce of their fowls has been guessed at by the inquisitor, and the old age pension has been interfered with to that extent. I should like to know, before this Debate closes, what is to be the position of the wage-earner under this Bill. We have been told that earnings are expressly excluded from the Bill. If that be so, then these dastardly actions to which I have referred will be repeated again and again. I am profoundly disappointed that the Government have not given the wage-earners the benefit of this Bill. If a person has 15s. per week or £39 per year, as a result of thrift, his pension is not interfered with. Thrift has been glorified in this House during the past two hours, but I do not myself glorify any working man who has a poor income if he stunts his family in the interest of thrift.
I do not see that thrift can be exercised by the working classes on the income they have at the present time, and I am quite certain that when this Bill is passed, if it be passed in its present form, and goes to the constituencies, the Labour Members will have a very unenviable time with these poor people who are earning small wages at the present
moment, because they will not get any benefit from the Bill. The same remarks apply to married couples. The most that a married couple can have in income is £2 per week If they have more than £2, they get no pension whatever. Under these conditions, the position of these people will remain, as it is now, perfectly intolerable, and I do hope, therefore, that the wage-earners will be given the benefit of this Bill.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I wish to welcome the introduction of this Bill before the House to-night, but, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spell Valley (Sir J. Simon), I feel that it does not go far enough, and I have, perhaps, the same criticism to make which has already been made by many speakers, and that is that the Bill has two defects. First of all, it still allows tine method of inquisition; and secondly, it does prevent people over 70 from performing casual labour unless they have something taken from their pensions. The details of the inquiries as to means are, to one who knows the forms, as I happen to do, very delicate for the applicants. They have a great deal of diffidence in answering the questions, and particularly, perhaps, Question No. 11, which is put in a very bald way, and says:
How much money have you?
None of us like to declare how much money we have, and the nearer it is to the border-line of poverty the less we like to declare it. I think a question of that kind has to be approached gently, and rather, I think in a tone of apology. Then, after the form is filled in, the pension officer has to make the same inquiry, and I desire to pay a tribute to the pension officers, who have a very difficult task to perform. I think that very often it is a sort of over-conscientiousness that makes them appear rather inquisitorial.
The applicants have to answer questions as to the profits they obtain, as the last speaker has said, from any small efforts of their own. They are asked, in the country districts, how many chickens they keep, whether they keep a pig, and as to any other earnings with which they are trying to eke out the small sum of money that they have. These questions are very vexatious, and I think the ap-
plicants, who, perhaps, are generally people of very slender education, rather resent them, because they are very sensitive to the circumstances under which they are trying to live. Here is a rather typical case that came before me in my own constituency. Other Members, I am quite sure, have similar cases. This is the case of an old man of 76, who has not applied up to the present for the old age pension, but he feels now the pinch of poverty. All that he possesses in this world is a set of threshing machines. He has two sons, one of whom, with his wife, lives with him. This old man of 76 keeps no books; he cannot read; he can just get a living along with his sons, and he has very great difficulty in making ends meet
When he applies for the old age pension, the form asks what is his income. The matter is complicated, because, in houses like that of which I am speaking, the whole of the earnings go, as a rule, into the same common fund, and cannot be separated, so that his income is very difficult to determine. He is not himself capable of working; he possesses no money; he has no book debts, and his only possession is this threshing set. The value of the threshing set is, at the present time, about £400, which, at 5 per cent., works out at £20 a year, or 7s. 9d. a week. That is very detailed reckoning, and pension officers may very well differ in reckoning these assets. I cite thus just as one of the cases which present very great difficulty when the inquisition has to come along and find out exactly what money a man has. As long as we have any qualification at all, we are bound to have this inquisition. The pension officer does not want to be too inquisitive, but, because of his very duties, he has to perform this task, often from over-conscientiousness, in that way. The second defect in the Measure is that the earnings of people over 70 should be counted. We have the Report of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions, which said:
The inclusion in the pensioner's means, by which he may lose his right to a pension, of certain kinds of income injuriously affects thrift, benevolence and industry.
Under the proposed Bill these earnings are counted before the pension is given, and it means that those are treated less generously who are thrifty than those who have saved. They are penalised in three ways. First of all, they must not
accept charity, or it is counted against them, or help from their sons, daughters or friends. They are literally discouraged from working, and it is really penalising earning, and I think when the only income is the 10s. it is very hard lines, because 10s. is quite insufficient for a man or woman to live on. The total of this penalising is a loss of happiness, because no one likes to feel that he is not needed and there is a certain joy and happiness when these people arrive at old age to feel that they are still of some use in the world. I have seen it over and over again in the case of old men and women. Perhaps a woman is only able to do a little bit of crochet work, or can only take care of her grandchildren or keep a neighbour's house clean or do a little caretaking. It is the same with the man. An old man can do a little gardening and other little odds and ends, and it is a real detriment to him if he cannot express his desire for service, in doing work at that age. They are much happier at work, and there is a sense of independence and self-respect and they prefer to work as a rule rather than have people benevolent to them. They are also very valuable for the knowledge they have, because an old man or woman who has worked in industry may not perhaps have the physical strength to earn the actual money, but, at any rate, has knowledge which can be imparted to other people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) expressed so well the desire of men and women to do this little bit of extra work and so add to their earnings. I call it earning for pleasure. Very often, by this little extra sum a man can buy his tobacco, or a woman a little bit of lace for frills, or a new cap, or a new garment by earning this little extra money. They feel they have earned it and they have a right to spend it as they wish. I think we all agree on the principle of giving old age pensions. It is a fearful prospect to think of old age and no adequate subsistence and, if only the Treasury could realise what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, if some plan could be devised whereby the Bill would be widened a little, it is not very much to ask and it would not mean a very great expense. Until we get conditions
that these people have enough to live on, we feel that they should be allowed to earn a little in that way. We want to encourage working over 70 if it is not going to penalise them but is going to give them a little pleasure, and it leaves those who are most harassed by the inquisition in the same position. For this reason I beg the Treasury to consider the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Debate was started by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and supported by others on the ground that the proposal we are now submitting was a departure from the pledges which we had given during Parliamentary elections and Motions which we have supported in the Chamber. I quite agree with those who suggest that is rather a barren controversy, for those who are by constitution rather cautious in debate are entitled to say that we have never suggested at any time that you could wipe out the whole of the means disqualification at one stroke, because that involves a very large sum of money, and we have been cautious to argue especially in existing financial conditions, that we can only proceed stage by stage. It is perfectly fair to ask whether, having regard to all the circumstances in which we found ourselves as a party financially when we took office, we have done all we could do at the moment. Be it remembered that over a very large part of the expenditure of the present year we ourselves had little or no control. The Estimates were settled before we came into office. We had to raise taxation to meet that expenditure, and, of itself, that, to a material extent determined the financial policy of the Government and its commitments during the present year. We have been five or six months in office, and, as a first step—because this was very clearly defined as an instalment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—we are providing under this proposal approximately £4,150,000, rising rapidly in the next few years to nearly £7,000,000. It is a rather odd fact, and it reminds us very sharply of the great change that has taken place in national finance, that when the change we are introducing to-night is effected it will amount to rather more than the original
estimate in 1908 for old age pensions as a whole, so remarkably have conditions altered during those years.
But I think we are also entitled to point out, though this is perhaps hardly strictly relevant, that during the same time and within this very financial year we are finding a sum of rather more than £600,000 for an improvement in the allowance of pre-War pensioners. So that taking the two sums together, there is £4,750,000 down, so to speak, in two spheres of pension administration, to say nothing at all, for the moment at all events, as to the sum we may have to find if we are able later in the year to embark upon a scheme of mothers' or widows' pensions. So, everything considered, I cannot help feeling that we have made on the whole a good beginning. No doubt it becomes all Governments to be modest in their statements, but when we look at existing financial conditions, when we remember the comparatively limited powers, from some points of view, which we possess, £4,750,000 strikes me as no ordinary achievement.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman says, "With the very limited powers he possesses." Surely he does not suggest that the fact that the Government for which he is speaking has a minority of the House supporting it is the smallest obstacle in the way of proposing more for old age pensions if he finds it possible to do so.

Mr. GRAHAM: No, that is not the point I have in mind. I was speaking almost entirely from the point of view of other financial commitments. I think that the £4,750,000 which we have found under the two heads was no ordinary achievement. We have made it perfectly plain that as regards old age pensions this is merely a beginning of a larger scheme. The hon. Member went on to suggest various alterations turning upon the position of aliens, the system of valuing property and other parts of what I would call the administrative structure. I made it clear on the last occasion that there is very real ground for criticising the existing system of valuing the property of applicants for old age pensions. As regards the position of aliens, there probably would be no tendency in any part of the House substantially to alter the conditions in that respect. As regards
these two suggestions, and other suggestions which have been made, they fall within a scope wider than the terms of the Financial Resolution. I would point out that what the Government have had to decide was whether they would introduce a proposal merely to amend the scale of allowances and to get that through the House, or whether they should embark upon a wider Measure, which would open the door for all kinds of Amendments proposed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, which would necessarily involve a good deal of time and consideration. We were compelled to take the course that we have taken, and to introduce a narrow financial proposal. Accordingly, I entirely agree that this Bill is merely a repetition of the Financial Resolution, and I should admire the ingenuity and the genuis of any hon. Member who could put down an effective Amendment to this Bill.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Sir J. Pennefather) referred to the position of the 63,000 people whose pensions to-day are under the full amount, and he made a suggestion bearing on the detailed written reply which I gave in the OFFICIAL REPORT recently. I will not take time now to examine the proposal which the hon. Member made, but it is perfectly clear that it would involve a serious departure from what we have now in mind. As the scheme stands, it will bring the whole of the 63,000 old age pensioners who are not now receiving the full amount of old age pension up to the full amount of 10s. per week.

Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Is the hon. Member correct in that statement? Suppose these people are not receiving the full amount of old age pension on account of their earnings, the present Bill will not alter that.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am coming to the problem of earnings later. In so far as earnings apply in the case which, the hon. Member quotes that may be true, but in my later statement I shall show that it will be true in only a limited number of cases. The overwhelming majority of the 63,000 people who are now receiving less than 10s. per week will be brought up to the full pension. Not only that, but the Estimate which has been summarised in the White Paper shows that approximately 150,000 or 170,000 additional people will be enfranchised for the purpose of old
age pensions. So that, on the whole, we can claim that a very large number of people are brought within the limits of what is, from the financial point of view, perhaps a narrow proposal.
I come now to the scheme adumbrated by one hon. Member, namely a proposal for a comprehensive scheme of social insurance. There is not the least doubt that a scheme of that kind makes a very strong appeal to a large number of Members, and, quite clearly, that is a matter which requires detailed consideration; but the fundamental difficulty which it raises is that of the contributory element. A certain part of our superannuation has grown up in this country on a noncontributory basis. There are other allowances, like old age pensions and the additional grants to pro-War pensioners, which are not strictly on the eleemosynary principle. That is, they are allowances which, perhaps from the highest point of view, have been earned from the State, but are not related to any contributory basis. On the other hand, there are all kinds of schemes in force which are strictly related to a contributory basis, and every student of this problem of social insurance, from Sir William Beveridge downwards, has quite fully recognised the difficulty of reconciling what has grown up so far with the comprehensive scheme which many advocates of that reform have demanded. I cannot pronounce on it, nor have I any authority to do so, on behalf of the Government, but I do say this, that, on the whole, I cannot believe that the change which we are introducing in giving these old age pensions, and the improvement that we have effected in the case of the pre-War pensions, will seriously militate against the success and effective character of any scheme of social insurance which may be introduced. When these changes come about we shall have to reconcile them in a comprehensive scheme, if the comprehensive scheme which we desire comes about. Perhaps I cannot be expected to give any further reply under that head.
Another hon. Member suggested that we should take the Income Tax limit as the basis of our proposal. His idea in supporting that scheme was that we should get rid of a good deal of the investigation which is now necessary. I am not quite sure that that would be the
case, but in any event there are two substantial difficulties as far as the Income Tax limit is concerned. The Income Tax limit is a fixed amount only nominally and on paper. In practice it varies or fluctuates with the different conditions of individuals with or without families and homes. There would be a great deal of administrative complication in taking the Income Tax basis. Quite apart from any difficulty which attaches to the Income Tax basis on the administrative side, the cost of it to my right hon. Friend would be prohibitive. We have tried to make it clear that on that footing, the cost would be only £3,000,000 less in the first year than the cost of the total removal of the means limit.
That is to say, while the immediate removal of the means limit on old age pensions would cost £18,000,000 in the first year, the adoption of the Income Tax basis, which would be approximately £150 or a little less in the ease of a single individual and £250 or less in the case of a married person would mean a cost in the first year only £3,000,000 less than the cost of the total removal of the means limit. That large sum would rise rapidly in very much the same kind of proportion as the smaller sum which we now propose will rise, because of the increased numbers of old age pensioners who will be with us at a comparatively early date. I think I have said enough on these two parts of the discussion to indicate the very substantial difficulty with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is confronted.
I come now to deal with two points which were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) and others. They turned, in part, upon the question of earnings, as affected by the proposals of the present Bill, and also in part upon what is called the inquisitorial investigation into means, and the right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion of a somewhat complex character, which raised, as I am sure he will agree, far-reaching issues lying far beyond the confines of this Bill. It is true that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his proposal to the House he very definitely said that he did not want to encourage old people over 70 years of age to be engaged in work.

Major MOULTON: This equally penalises the earnings of a wife, who may be 20 years younger than her husband. Is it suggested that a woman of 50 should not work to help her husband?

Mr. GRAHAM: If my hon. and gallant Friend will leave detailed points like that to the Committee stage of the Bill, we shall be able to show that a great many of the difficulties which hon. Members have in mind can be settled.

Sir J. SIMON: Will it be in order for the hon. Member to move an Amendment?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member moves an Amendment which does not increase the charge, I have not the least hesitation in saying that it will be in order. On this question of earnings, it is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it is no part of his intention in the least to encourage work by people over that age. I agree that that is a debatable proposition, but I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend would deny that for a moment. Undoubtedly there are certainly hardships falling on old people with which we are familiar, more particularly in industrial, and also in agricultural areas in this country. But where the old age pensioners are able to work, the problem would be solved very largely. If they are able to work, the income flowing from that would tend to increase the amount of their income up to the income limit. The problem turns far more, closely upon those casual earnings which are got by large numbers of old people, and it is mainly on that point that I would say a word or two. A great deal turns upon the definition of "earnings." May I make the plea that under the scheme we have in mind there would be a very definite effort to draw a distinction between earnings, in the sense of what are strictly attributable to the labour of the individual, and those earnings which may be regarded as a kind of award or return for past services
Certain Members in the course of the Debate have indicated the case of old age pensioners who are in a small occupation, who help in a shop, or who are otherwise engaged in some form of casual employment. I should think that it will be quite easy within this scheme to draw such a distinction as will secure the great bulk of the benefit for old age pensioners in
that position. Some hon. Members have suggested, inside and outside the House, that persons in the position of those whom I have just described might enjoy the benefit of the 50 per cent. allocation as between what is attributable to earnings in the strict sense, and what is a mere return on capital. I ought to warn the House at once against the difficulty of making a precise allocation in that way. A great deal will depend on the individual merits of each case. Generally I am advised that there will be a very sincere effort on the part of the pension officers, and also on the part of the pensions committees in the district, to which, after all, these applications go for determination, so to interpret that as to confer the greatest possible part of this benefit upon the old age pensioner.

Mr. PALMER: Would you, under the rule, interpret the rent of the house or the value of the house in which these old people were living as coming within the category of earned or unearned?

Mr. GRAHAM: In that case, without giving a final or precise answer, they will get the benefit of the increase of the allowance to 15s. over and above the existing figure, and I think that if inquiry be made into the value of maintenance and the occupation of a house that difficulty will very largely disappear. The right hon. Gentleman passed from that to a criticism of the inquisitorial investigation, as it is described. I do not propose to-night to restate the argument that if there is to be a means limit at all it is generaly recognised that there must be an investigation of some kind, but I do hope to convince the House that with the scheme which we propose there is bound, on balance, to be less investigation than there is now. I may give one or two reasons in support of that contention. The House will remember that under the scheme, as it stands now, it is necessary for pension officers, because of the comparatively smallness of the allowance, to look into every small and trifling items of income which the pensioners enjoy, but when it is remembered that the central part of our proposal is that in the case of the individual applicant, an extra allowance of 15s. per week is to be made in making the calculation in favour of the pensioner, all those familiar with the social conditions in industrial and agricultural areas will agree that, having
regard to the higher limits which are now being given, it will be perfectly plain to the pension officers and others that detailed and meticulous investigation such as is now often necessary will no longer be required. Accordingly, to that extent the inquiry is very largely reduced.
My right hon. Friend sets against that what he conceives to be a new inquiry in the shape of an inquiry into what is earned under the proposals which we now submit. Already, in the operation of the existing scheme, it is necessary to know what is the source of income. I cannot believe that in practice you are going to add substantially to the inquiry that you are now making, and in any even I have no doubt that, on balance, under our proposal, the investigation will in practice be reduced. But so long as any income limit remains at all investigations must take place. I am advised that it will be the aim and effort of the officers to carry out that investigation is as sympathetic a spirit as possible I have often paid a tribute to them far the way in which their duty is discharged. Any person over 70 years of age, at the end of a long, harassing and industrious life, does resent question about means. Very often these people, through no fault of their own, find it difficult to make a return or to answer the simplest question. Moreover, in many cases it is very difficult indeed to arrive at the facts as regards birth and the rest. No one who has served on a pensions committee will dispute that the officers, in the majority of cases, take very great care to build up a case, in so far as it can be built up, for the applicant, and in all the cases of complaint which I have personally investigated, I have found that for the most part they turn upon some thing which the old age pensioner quite naturally resents, but which, I am afraid, is inseparable from any scheme so long as the income limit remains.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Is it intended to issue instructions to the pensions officers to carry out their inquiries in future in the spirit which the Financial Secretary has indicated?

Mr. GRAHAM: There is no need to issue instructions of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am quite willing to bring this matter to the notice of the old age pensions officers of the country. I do not dispute that there has been
ground occasionally for complaint. I have only stated the result of my experience in the overwhelming majority of cases which I have personally investigated, both before and since I held my present office. The right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion which he thought would reduce the difficulty as regards the inquiry. It came broadly to this: That the applicant should execute a disclaimer, which would afterwards operate as a power of recovery against his estate for such amount of old age pension as had been wrongly paid. I cannot give the House the legal details of such a proposal. But it is clear that the difficulty would arise only after the death of the individual. Secondly, there must be this difficulty, that so long as the income limit remains at all there might be all kinds of fluctuations of income and resources up to the time preceding the death of the recipient. I am not quite clear as to how that difficulty is to be met. Without pronouncing further upon the proposal, I do not think at the moment that it is one which we can adopt at this stage, but I entirely agree that any proposal, put forward from any part of the House, which will reduce the administrative inquiry and thereby reduce the cost and facilitate the grant of pensions, is worth investigation. Accordingly, within the next week, before the Committee stage, I undertake to make further inquiry upon the suggestion and to give a more detailed reply then. I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, not because we believe it to be the final stage on the road of reform, but because it is one instalment of what we propose to introduce from time to time for those who, after industrious effort, have reached the eventide of life.

Mr. STURROCK: I have listened with very great interest to the speech which has been made on behalf of the Government. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I are very old colleagues in the matter of dealing with pensions questions of all sorts, but I take the liberty of saying that I am profoundly disappointed with the statement which he has just made, for this reason if for no other—many reasons could be enumerated—that any Member of any party, except the Labour party, might express disappointment this evening on
the attitude of the Government towards this Bill. I will refer only to the inquisitorial methods which are supplied to old age pensioners in all parts of the country. I did indeed hope, altogether apart from party polities, and on this I appeal to hon. Members above the Gangway as I do to Members in every part of the House, to agree with me, that too much inquisition applied to the application of the Old Age Pensions Act—

HON. MEMBERS: Who imposed it?

Mr. STURROCK: What does it matter now who imposed it? Let us deal with the thing as a living fact in the lives of the aged and poor people of the country, and, for Heaven's sake, let us try for one moment to escape from party politics altogether! I appeal to hon. Members to agree with me that there is ample machinery in every form, and that, if properly applied with some imagination on the part of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, it would provide all the inquiry that it is necessary to make of applicants for old age pensions. What happens now? I cannot give the exact figures of all that is spent on old age pensions, but I know very well that a great deal of money is spent every year in Scotland on the travelling expenses, salaries and all the extras which go to make up the expenditure in travelling round the country and inquiring into the case of every pensioner in every parish in Scotland. I respectfully submit to the Financial Secretary that he could get over all the difficulty of meeting those cases, and that he could introduce a much more humane method of dealing with them, by appointing either a clergyman or a justice of the peace or an organisation or society in the neighbourhood to inquire into the case of any man or woman who applied for the pension. He could thus ascertain in a much more humane way than the present the rights or wrongs of any case that was in question.
I was one of those who imagined that when this Government came into office we were at last going to see an end to all bureaucracy and officialism. What does one find? The Financial Secretary, for whom I have the highest regard, seems to be disappearing beneath a sea of bureaucracy. I appeal to him—it may be a dying hope—to strike to get rid of those influences which I feel certain he
is bound to encounter at the Treasury or elsewhere, if he goes higher, as he undoubtedly will. I ask him to try to bring into the administration of old age pensions a different spirit and that feeling of humanity which he has advocated on behalf of his own party in the past, and which I have tried to advocate on behalf of my party. I ask him to introduce new ideas of administration and to take people on credit more than has been done in the past. I object completely to the system which prevails to-day, and I protest against this Government or any Government continuing methods of administration which I am sure are repulsive to the feelings of Members of all parties. I hope my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary wilt consider the suggestion that something might be done to work the administration of these pensions on the lines indicated—by receiving on behalf of applicants statements from clergymen, justices of the peace or other persons whose names and whose work qualify them to give such recommendations. This Bill is a very short one and I think it is a very bad one, because it continues the conditions as to the means, with the provision that they shall be calculated
after deducting therefrom such part, if any, thereof, but not exceeding in any case £39, as is derived from any source other than earnings.
I wish to score no points against the Labour Government. I have been in politics long enough to know that no party which gains power ever fulfils all the obligations which it is under to those who have supported it in the country. This Government is the last example of that, and there never was a greater example. The promises made by my own opponent and by others who came forward on behalf of the Labour party at the last Election were such that it would have been very difficult, in that particular respect, to defeat them. Here we have an opportunity of implementing the promises which were made on every platform in the country. I am not specially singling out the Government, because on this matter of old age pensions all parties were committed to making the widest extension possible of the scheme. It was almost universally agreed that old age pensions should be accorded to anyone at the age of 65 or 70 who cared to make application, but this
Government has not only maintained the inquisitorial machinery set up when the Act was first passed, but has continued to make all sorts of reservations which I personally deplore, and which I feel sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench themselves deplore.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I desire to bring to the notice of the Financial Secretary a point which has not been mentioned during this Debate. I under stand this is a Bill which seeks to remove certain disqualifications. May I remark, in passing, that every opportunity was given to both Liberals and Conservatives to remove them long ago. I wish to refer to one particular disqualification: It is a disqualification which affects an aged couple who have reared a family, when through economic pressure or a desire to better themselves that family cross the seas and take up residence in some distant part of His Majesty's Dominions. The old couple naturally desire to end their days with their children in that far off country, but in order to do so they must sacrifice the old age pension. I understand that service pensioners have had extended to them the right of receiving their pensions in any part of His Majesty's Dominions and, if that be the case, I ask the Financial Secretary to consider the possibility of continuing the payment of old age pensions to those old people who may take up residence in any of the Dominions or Colonies. I have received many letters upon this subject showing that there is a real hardship involved. These old people do not desire to go abroad if it means the loss of the pensions; yet there is a craving in the hearts of old men and women not to be separated from their children, and it would be a great benefit to them if the Government introduced a Clause which would allow of the continuance of pension in the circumstances I have mentioned. I think everything that could be said on the subject of pensions, apart from this, has been said in this Debate over and over again, and I am not going to attempt to repeat it, but I press upon the Government the necessity for some such reform as I have indicated.

Major MOULTON: I want to raise one point on this Bill in regard to the penalisation of earnings. An old age pen-
sioner over 70 may have a wife 20 years younger than himself, a woman of 50, but for her there is no relief, and I think the Government might explain under what great moral principle they say that if a pensioner and his wife have an annuity left to them, that ought not to be taken into account for pension purposes, but that if a woman of 50 goes out and tries to do a little work to improve their position, that is a thing for which no relief can be given. I honestly say that, before this Bill had been introduced, if anybody had suggested that a Labour Government could so penaiise earnings as compared with unearned income, I do not think I or anybody would have thought it possible.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I do not think it is right that this Bill should go through without strenuous protest. It inserts into our law a thoroughly harmful and vicious principle. It penalises, for the first time, earnings. Take the case of a man who may be beating a carpet in his back garden. You will have to have inspectors sent down by the Treasury to discover whether the carpet he is beating belongs to him or somebody else. That is the kind of principle that the Government are introducing into our law. The inquisition is Spanish enough as it is, but it is being made far more rigorous and inexcusable under this Bill than it has ever been before. It is no exaggeration to say that the old age pensioner is going to be put upon the rack. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir E. Wood) called attention to some of the pledges given by the Socialist Government previous to the last Election, and I really think it is most relevant to call attention to those pledges, for this reason, that those pledges have not ceased with the entry into office of the Labour party. Representatives of the Government are still going up and down the country proclaiming that they are the only people in the world who can do anything far the old age pensioners. Again, the pledges are relevant for another reason, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to justify this Bill on the ground that it was a fulfilment of pledges. Had he not done that, there might have been some excuse for him. If he had been frank enough to come here and say: "This Bill does not implement the pledges which we gave, but, nevertheless,
it is the most that we can do," there would be some excuse for him. But he said:
The Financial Resolution which I now submit to the Committee is in fulfilment of pledges which have been given by all parties in this House.
He proceeded to give the pledge that was given, for instance, by the Labour party, which begins in this way, that when the Labour party gets into power
it will take care that little children shall not needlessly die.
What the precise relevance of that remark is, I have thoroughly failed to understand after mature consideration, and I want to know when a Bill is to be introduced that is going to prevent this species of murder, and I want to know whether in the Schedule of that Bill measles is going to appear as one of the justifiable causes of death. At any rate, ran the pledge,
little children shall not needlessly die;….it will make generous provision for the aged people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1924; col. 468, Vol. 175.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I do not think we are called upon to discuss the position of children on this Bill, which has to do with old age pensions.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I had already passed, by somewhat rapid transition, from the children to the old age pensioners, and I was merely quoting from a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in justification of this proposal. He also read the pledges of the Liberal party, which, according to him, were that the thrift disqualification attached to old age pensions should be immediately removed. This Bill is not removing it, and, therefore, it is quite disingenuous of the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that by this Bill he is giving expression and fulfilment to the pledges given, either by his own party or the Liberal party, in regard to old age pensions. So insistent was he upon this point, that I would remind the House that he also said:
The proposal that I am now submitting to the House fulfils, amply fulfils, generously fulfils, the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister in the quotation that I have just read to the House.
Not content with that, he ventured to stress it by saying:
I submit that this is a fulfilment of the Government's pledges, and it is a fulfilment of the pledges of the Liberal party. It is a fulfilment, an ample fulfilment, of the pledge given by the Unionist party at the last Election."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1924; col. 477, Vol. 175.]
Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who justifies a proposal of this kind upon a ground such as that lays himself open to the charge that he is not expressing veraciously what are the facts. The facts are these, that in 1921 the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for the Home Department moved a Resolution in this House, as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on old age pensions in favour of the repeal of the provisions in the Old Age Pensions Acts as to calculation of means should be adopted and the Old Age Pensions Act amended accordingly, thereby enabling applicants for and recipients of the old age pension to derive the full benefit of their thrift and personal provision for old age and to receive assistance from friends, employers, and organisations without reduction of or disqualification for the full pension.
That was the pledge given by the Socialist party, and if they were prepared to vote for that principle before they came into office, it is, according to all the principles of morality and honour, as I understand them, their bounden obligation to fulfil that pledge. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, in moving that Resolution, made some remarks which are of the highest interest, because they are a complete answer to such remarks as were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Financial Resolution. He said:
The purpose of the Motion is to remove the means limit which at present stands in the Pensions Act of 1919. If the Motion is accepted, the amount of the pension and the qualifying age will remain unchanged.… The case for universal pensions appears to me to be…as a citizen's right. It should not be subject, as unfortunately it is to-day, to any poverty test, or lead to any inquisitorial investigation. Moreover, I consider that the retention of the means limit is really indefensible.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the means limit could not be logically removed at all, and he suggested that it would be quite possible to remove it. The right hon. Gentleman who is now
Secretary of State for the Home Department said that its retention is entirely indefensible, and that
experience goes to show that it operates with the greatest possible harshness against many of our best citizens… Possibly the only doubt existing in the minds of most hon. Members will be as to whether, under existing circumstances, this sum can be raised. I venture to remind the House that the cost of our armed forces has gone up from £86,000,000 in 1913 to £269,000,000 in 1920, and I need not say the money has been raised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1921; cols. 1979 and 1983.]
The cost of these armed forces has now decreased, and would have decreased still further had the Socialist party not thought fit so far to sacrifice their principles as to find work for the building of cruisers. I was quite prepared to support them in the building of those cruisers, and I did support them.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather wandering away from old age pensions.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it your opinion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman will begin to believe in himself if he talks long enough?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is it your belief, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a joke if he tries long enough? In a discussion of this kind, when hon. Gentlemen have said so much in their constituencies—

Mr. WALLHEAD: And you have done so little in your party.

Major HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend says we have done so little. We could not have done more than introduce these pensions, and it is perfectly ridiculous to endeavour to deny the Liberal party credit for having introduced old age pensions. They were then 5s. They were increased to 7s. 6d., and, subsequently, to 10s., and I venture to say it is absolutely no reproach to us that we did do something, and we did as much as we were permitted to do at the time. The point I was making was that hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Socialist Benches went down to the constituencies, and still go down to the constituencies, and say that they are the only people who ever did anything, or ever will do anything for old age pensions. I only referred to the cruisers, because they did not promise to build cruisers, and they
did build them. The right hon. Gentleman, in saying that the means limit retention was absolutely indefensible, was supported in the Lobby by the Lord Privy Seal, the Postmaster-General, the Secretary of State for War and the Chief Labour Whip. Either they meant what they said, and meant to bear the consequences of their action, or they did not. If they did mean to bear them, they are in justice and honour bound to carry out their pledges to the full, quite irrespective of the cost, because the cost was an element they dealt with in their speeches. If my own party had so disgracefully, so inexcusably and so villanously broken their plighted word, I should not have hesitated to stand up and say what I thought about it.
It is about time that the electioneering methods that are adopted by my hon. Friends who now form the supporters of the Government were reconsidered. There can be no ground whatever for deluding people—and old people—into believing that their good fortune depends upon the election of a particular party. In the year 1922, Mr. Myers, who was then Member for Spen Valley, moved precisely the same Resolution which the Home Secretary moved the year before, and he said:
In a word, we would make the birth certificate of the applicant for an old age pension the sole test upon which the decision is made.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking here last week when introducing the Financial Resolution, said there was no alternative between doing what he was doing, and creating universal pensions, under which system a birth certificate alone would entitle a man to a pension, which would be a ridiculous and illogical system, and would compel him to give pensions to dukes and lords. But when it came to a Motion of this kind before the right hon. Gentleman was in office, the whole Socialist party went into the Lobby in favour of making the birth certificate the test. [Interruption.] Personally, I am prepared, and I am sure the whole of the Liberal party is prepared, to carry out what it said. What is the use, year after year, of moving Resolutions of this kind, and using strong language of this kind deprecating the action of other parties, if there is no honest intention whatever to do what you say? It is a perfectly serious point,
although it seems to amuse my hon. Friends. They have got the cash, and they are prepared to let the discredit go. "We shall be told by the Government," said Mr. Myers in moving his Resolution, "that there is any amount of sympathy for this proposal," and no one could express it more eloquently than my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] It is a most extraordinary thing that my hon. Friends say the most bitter and the most unkind things about their opponents, and yet cannot stand criticism for one moment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think if the hon. and gallant Member would address his remarks to me, he would not be interrupted.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—that hon. Gentlemen who address such unkind and such venomous remarks to Members on these benches should have the courage to listen, and not be so anxious to move the Closure, in order to avoid the inevitable necessity of hearing what other people think about them.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member proceed with his speech.

Mr. RICHARDSON: With all respect, I submit that the interjection "Divide" is not disorderly or out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have asked hon. Members to allow the hon. Member to proceed with his speech.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I will read an extract from a speech made by a colleague of my hon. Friends who support the Government, upon a Resolution which called for the immediate and entire removal of the means disqualification. I know that my hon. Friends are most anxious not to take their medicine, but, as long as you will allow me, I shall go on. I promise that my speech shall not be of more than two hours' duration. There is no obstruction whatever.
We shall be told by the Government that there is any amount of sympathy with this proposal, but there is no money to back it. We cannot accept sympathy without something, behind it. Sympathy is useless unless backed by something of a substantial character. I am not going to accept
any argument advanced from the point of view that we cannot find the money, while we are able to point to avenues of expenditure of a much less desirable kind. I decline to listen to any argument which is supported only by the statement that no money can be found for this purpose.
In support of these pious principles, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland went into the Lobby, and was followed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Lord Privy Seal, and not least, by the hon. Gentleman who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury and is so eloquent in his arguments opposing the principles he formerly advanced. The Postmaster-General and the Home Secretary, and a large number of other Ministers and their satellites went into the Lobby, including the Secretary for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for War, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not see in the list the First Commissioner of Works, but the Minister for Overseas Trade was there, and a very large number of others. Indeed, I see all who were members of the Socialist party in those days.
Precisely the same Motion was moved again in the following year, 1923, and similar remarks were made in favour of the total abolition of the means limit, which was characterised by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion as an "objectionable method to which no hon. Member of this House would submit," and on that occasion practically all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Front Treasury Bench went into the Lobby in favour of that Motion. Even the Prime Minister of England has supported the total and immediate abolition of the means limit, and it is therefore, in my estimation, quite inexcusable for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down to this House and say what he did say, namely, that this Bill fulfils every pledge that has been given by the Socialists and every other party. That is the point that I am making. If the right hon. Gentleman has the frankness to say: "It does not fulfil it, but it is the best I can do," everybody would have sympathy with him, but he absolutely says that this is a fulfilment, and a complete fulfilment, of every promise and undertaking ever given by the Socialist party. He knows perfectly
well, and I have demonstrated, that it means nothing of the kind. I am not like the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Buchanan) who bitterly attacks his Front Bench one day, and gets up and pats them on the back another day. I have some consistency. I do attack his Front Bench, and I shall continue to do so. I do not blow hot and cold. He is one of the most moderate extremists that has ever been in this House, and one of the least courageous. Extraordinary statements were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced the Bill into the House, and one of the most extraordinary ones was: "I do not think it right to do anything to encourage earnings by individuals above 70 years of age." In the course of this speech he referred to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions, and it so happened that that Committee, under the heading in its Report of "Industry" said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I call on the hon. Member to proceed with his speech.

Major HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friends are so afraid of hearing the truth that they keep up a constant interruption, which only gives me an extra stimulus.
We believe with many witnesses"—
says the Report—
that the old people themselves are likely to be healthier and happier when engaged in suitable occupations than when induced to live in idleness.
Now you have it on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not think it right to do anything to encourage earnings by individuals above 70, and I have no hesitation in asserting that to take away from the old men or women their habit of earning their livelihood, is tantamount to sentencing them to death. There is no question about it. They have been accustomed all their lives to work. Under a principle such as this, Mr. Gladstone could not, in his latter days, have been Prime Minister of this country, and if one pauses to read history, one would see that a great deal of most valuable work has been done by men who were over the age of 70 years. Why one should inaugurate in this century a principle which penalises them and is virtually sentencing them to death,
I cannot understand. Nor is the State going to benefit by a system of this kind, because it is simply an invitation to the person who is earning money to go to his employer and say: "You give me that money as a gratuity and the State will replace it by an old age pension." It is not going to save one penny. Even if the inclusion of earnings were tantamount to giving a universal old age pension, any hon. Member who looks at the number of people over 70 years of age, and the difference between those numbers and those who are actually going to get a pension under this system will see that the increase of numbers consequent upon giving the old age pension to everybody will be so infinitesimal as to make the cost perfectly negligible.
I want to know what progress the Government have made into their investigation of a comprehensive scheme of old age pensions. The Departmental Committee proposed an old age pension at the age of 65, and it did not go far enough for some right hon. Gentlemen who are now sitting on the Front Bench. They issued a Minority Report, urging that pensions at the age of 65 should be immediately put into operation "this autumn." That was the autumn of 1919. I want to know what progress the Government has made in its consideration of this Report. There is only one way of facing the cost of this scheme, and that is by an all-in insurance scheme, which is to cover the widow, and those who have accidents, and the old age pensions, and those who suffer financial loss, from whatever cause. The House has a right to know the progress of the investigation, because it is only when such a scheme is provided that people will get pensions at 65, and the means limit will be abolished. I have had a very courteous hearing from this House, but I think it only right that, when a Government which is so debased as to claim that it has implemented and satisfied pledges when it has done nothing of the kind—I think it is only right that it should be reminded of the fact by hon. Members who are sufficiently interested to point it out, on behalf of the old people that it has done nothing of the kind.

Mr. B. TURNER: I want to support the Second Reading of the Bill and to appeal to the House to accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and of the hon. Member
for Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood), both of whom are evidently in favour of abolishing the means limit completely. Their speeches this afternoon certainly were in that direction, and so was the speech of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. I feel therefore that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should accept their suggestion and abolish once and for all the means limit. All sides of the House are agreed upon that, and if hon. Members are really honest in the speeches they have made then I think our Front Bench should accept their offer. But why, when the Financial Resolution was under discussion, did not hon. Gentlemen make this proposal? I would gladly welcome our Front Bench taking the bold step which has been suggested and telling the Super-tax payers, both Liberal and Conservative, that they will have to bear the burden. Let us have a compulsory scheme of old age pensions at 70 or 65. After all this idea of old age pensions did not drop like manna from the heavens: it was spoken of in the market place by Labour speakers long before it was introduced in the form of legislation.

Major HORE-BELISHA: And the Liberal party in the first place criticised it on the ground that it did not abolish the means limit.

Mr. TURNER: The hon. Gentleman has been trying to give castor oil to hon. Members on the benches around me, but now he cannot himself take senna tea. I am certain that if we get an intimation from the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties in favour of the abolition of the means limit the Labour Government will welcome it. I have not changed my views for the last 40 years. I have always held that there should be a non-contributory scheme of old age pensions at 65. The present inquisitions are devilish, and I hope our leaders will be courageous enough to accept the offer of the other parties to abolish them.

Mr. FOOT: I only intervene because of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to-day. He was speaking on a point raised again and again, namely, the question of earnings and the inclusion of earnings in the calculation made for fixing the amount of pension. The hon. Gentleman said that the officers and the local committees
would be instructed to place the most favourable interpretation on the word "earnings." I think that those who serve, or have served, on old age pension committees will be of opinion that there is no agreement at all between the Government officer and the local committee. The local committee is generally very desirous of securing the pension for the applicant, while the officer, in pursuance of his duty, is very much more careful in his inquiry and much keener in his interpretation of the existing law. What I wish to know is this, whether we are to rely simply on the instructions sent out both to the committees and the officer to put a liberal interpretation on the word or whether something could not he inserted in the Regulations, or in this Bill by way of preference, to ensure that the interpretation of the word shall he liberal in the case of these old people. This is a very short Bill, but in the first Clause in which reference is made to "earnings" surely it would be possible to have some definition of the word inserted, so as to go beyond the present limited interpretation too often imposed.
I believe the hon. Gentleman sought to distinguish between different kinds of earnings. He said there would be two kinds of earnings brought under the consideration of the Committee. Would it be possible, although the Financial Resolution has been passed to amend this Bill by so defining the word as to allow a wider and more generous interpretation to be applied? I hope that when that discussion does arise in the Committee there will be no restrictions on hon. Members, and that we shall not be thrown back merely on the terms of the Resolution. Will it be possible to further consider the point raised earlier in the Debate and accept from these old people the same declaration as is accepted from Income Tax payers. That point was raised in the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolution. When we are dealing with millions of money and with people in a very much more fortunate position than these pensioners, and much more qualified to make returns, we make no inquisition in the first instance; we simply say: "Give us a return of your income and we will base our assessment upon it, but if we find you have been guilty of fraud we will punish you for it."

Mr. CASSELS: It is all very well to make a return of income, but the employer has also to say what he pays his employés, and there is a check in that way.

Mr. FOOT: There is no check on the employer, but if in the course of his return he is found guilty of fraud he is punishable. In many other cases we do accept returns. When the pensions were increased under the Act of 1920 we accepted from the people who applied for the increase, a declaration as to their need. Why cannot we rely on the genuineness and honesty of these people and accept from them a declaration, rendering them of course liable to punishment in the case of deliberate fraud? That will do away with the necessity for the inquisitions. It will make the pension more acceptable to the recipients, and I hope therefore we may have some assurance that the Bill will be altered in this direction, so as to get rid of these aggravating inquiries which make the old age pension far less of a concession than it should be in the minds of the people. I have only one last sentence. I hope the Government in the definition will have some regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Major Moulton), and that we may be able to exclude from the Bill the earnings made either by husband or wife if they are below 70 years of age. I understand those are excluded now by the terms of the Resolution who are over 70. But if the husband of a pensioner is himself under 70, or the wife of the pensioner is herself under 70, surely the fact that he or she is going on earning ought not to be taken into consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: That would increase the cost.

Mr. FOOT: I am not sure it will. I hope, however, that point will be raised, as it has been raised in debate, and considered in Committee and I hope if it is, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I am sure will be the case with my hon. Friend opposite, will give the matter their sympathy.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to extend the time allowed by the Post Office (London) Railway Act, 1913, for the completion of the railway authorised there-under. That Act authorised the Post Office to construct a rube railway in London extending from Paddington to Whitechapel, a distance of between six and seven miles. It provided that five years should be allowed for the completion of the work. However, the interruption of work caused by the War rendered the completion of the work within the time impracticable. The time for the completion of the work has been, from time to time extended by Orders made under the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Act, 1915, as extended by the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act, 1920. The last of these Orders extended the time for the completion of the work to 15th August, 1924. It is necessary, therefore, if the work is to be completed that the principal Act should be amended. This Bill proposes to delete the five years extension, and to insert instead thereof 14 years. That is to say, to give till 1927 for the completion of the work. It is thought that work will be completed within the next two years, or at any rate soon after, but it is felt, in order to give ample time for completing the work, we ought to ask for an extension of time for three years.
I suppose the House would wish that I should say a few words about the present position of this railway. Hon. Members will be aware that the railway connects the great station at Liverpool Street with Paddington, and links up all the great sorting stations of London between these two railway stations. The delay in completing the work has been due to two causes. First of all, there was the War which prevented operations proceeding then after the War the Government went on and completed the tunnel. Then the question arose of equipping it electrically. We had an estimate for this electrical equipment of £156,000. The lowest tender obtainable in 1921–2 was £650,000. The Govern-
ment of the day felt it had better wait until prices fell rather than give out a contract when prices were at that point. The wisdom of the Government of that day is proved by the fact that we have now tenders in for this equipment which will involve a saving of between £200,000 and £300,000. What I have stated shows, I think, ample reason for asking that more time should be allowed in order to complete this work. When the railway is completed 60 per cent. of the total postal traffic of London it is estimated will go along the railway, and will be—

Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill, might I remind the right hon. Gentleman, is merely for an extension of time. It is not in order to go into the original merits of the proposal.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know that it is necessary to say much more than I have said. The sole purpose of the introduction of the Bill is to seek an extension of time, and hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. BETTERTON: So far as I am concerned I have no objection at all to this Bill, and I think there is none in any quarter of the House; and you, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out that it only involves extending the time provided by the original Bill. I rise to ask one question, that is, why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee? As I understand it, in 1913 the original proposal was considered by a Select Committee. I am at a loss to understand why it is felt necessary in this Bill, which merely extends the time, to refer it to a Select Committee instead of to an ordinary Standing Committee upstairs.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have been advised that it is necessary, in order to comply with the Standing Orders of the House, to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The matter is being dealt with by counsel who have to determine these matters, and that is the position which has been reached.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Like the last speaker, I am anxious to know what is the cost of this scheme. I quite appreciate what the Postmaster-General has said as to the saving of £200,000 or
£300,000, but I think we should know what the cost of this tube is going to be. Is it a suction tube; and who are the contractors? If the Postmaster-General can give me an answer about the cost I should appreciate it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I believe the right hon. Gentleman said this Bill would affect 60 per cent. of the postal traffic of London. Will he say how many vans will be wiped off the roads on account of this new railway. The Post Office vans form a considerable part of the traffic problem, and the more it is relieved—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now going into the merits of the original Bill.

Mr. HARTSHORN: If it is in order to reply on the question put to me about the cost, I would like to say that the original estimate was £1,100,000. The present estimate is for £1,650,000, and already £1,178,000 has been spent, in addition to considerable commitments which have been entered into. The total required for completion is £1,650,000. Tenders have been invited and received, and they are now under consideration.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I hope the House will give the right hon. Gentleman the extension of time for which he has asked. I am very glad to notice that he is so keen about speeding up the matter of dealing with letters in the London district, because there is considerable delay at the present time. I can understand why he is so keen about this, because a message sent on Saturday afternoon is considered to be delivered in good time if it gets there on Monday morning. I would ask him to consider the speeding up of letters in that direction.

Captain BERKELEY: In view of the necessity for clearing the streets of the mail vans and other Post Office traffic, is not the time which the right hon. Gentleman is asking for, namely, three years, a little excessive In view of the fact that all the right hon. Gentleman says is necessary now is to instal electric equipment, would it not be better for him to ask for one year, and then apply for an extension at the end of that period if it is required.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee he referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Hartshorn.]

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COURTS BILL.

As amended (in, the Standing Committee) further considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision, as to striking out plaint, etc.)

A registrar on the application of the defendant, of the hearing of which application seven clear days' notice shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiff, may order a plaint or other proceeding to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and shall make such order as to costs as he may think proper.

From the decision of the registrar an appeal shall lie to the County Court Judge in chambers.—[Mr. Mitchell Banks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BANKS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to second the Motion.

10.0 P.M.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): Perhaps it will save the time of the House if I say that, although I do not think this Amendment is necessary, I am willing to accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to hearing action for injunction.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, it shall be within the competence of a Judge of the County Court to hear and determine an action for
injunction although there be no claim for damages in connection therewith.—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause to make provision in regard to the hearing of actions for injunctions. There are a number of instances where in some small or trivial case the County Court Judge has not power to grant an injunction unless there is a claim for damages. The supporters of this new Clause desire a County Court Judge to have the same right in that respect as now appertains to a High Court Judge. There is some rattle difficulty owing to the fact that as there is to be no claim for damages it might be thought certain actions would be commenced in the County Court. That difficulty may be got ever if an affidavit were sworn saying it was within the jurisdiction of the County Court itself. Perhaps the Attorney-General may consider that there is a case for something like this being done. I know he does not desire to force litigants who cannot afford it to go to the High Courts, but if he disapproves of this new Clause perhaps he can, in another place, give us something that will meet an undoubted difficulty which ought to be met. All we desire is that where a member of the working classes desires an injunction on some small matter he should have the right to go to the County Court, whereas at present he is compelled to adopt the expensive procedure of the High Court, and that is why I am making this proposal.

Mr. WILBERFORCE ALLEN: I beg to second the Motion. I support all that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has said on this question, and I submit to the Attorney-General that there is a necessity for a proposal of this character. I appreciate what has been said that there may be some difficulty in its application, having regard to the limit that is always imposed upon proceedings in the County Court. I cannot help thinking, however, that that is a difficulty which can be readily got over. In my own experience, some few years ago, I had, in the course of a very few months, quite a number of cases for litigants in comparatively poor circumstances, who sought injunctions,
and it was impossible to bring proceedings in the County Court in those cases, for the simple reason that it was not possible to hitch on to them a claim for damages. There have been cases, I know, in which, by the exercise of ingenuity, a claim for damages has been made, more or less of a nominal character, in order to get over the difficulty, but I submit to the Attorney-General that this Clause is somewhat on all fours with the Clause he has already accepted. It is not a matter of great importance, but there are cases, know, every year, in which it would remove a certain amount of hardship.
I may, perhaps, be permitted to say, although it may not necessarily recommend the Clause to hon. Members above the Gangway, that in one or two cases in which workmen have desired to bring actions against trade unions, those actions could not be brought in the County Court, although the subject-matter was not large, because all that they wanted was an injunction, and not damages against the union itself. I do not suppose that hon. Members above the Gangway desire to encourage litigation against trade unions, but they are probably as desirous as we are that trade unionists who are suffering from hardship should have all the assistance that this House and the Courts can afford them. There have been cases of that kind in which it has been necessary to involve claimants in expensive High Court proceedings, because there was no claim for damages, but simply a claim for an injunction in order to remove a very substantial injustice.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Clause, nor can I hold out the slightest hope that it will be moved by the Government in another place. Neither do I agree that it is not a matter of importance. In my view it is a matter of great importance and danger. The importance is that, as many hon. Members will know, there is a limit to the jurisdiction of the County Courts—a purely financial limit. Within my own experience there have been many attempts to institute actions merely for an injunction, without putting in a claim for damages, which have, as a necessary consequence, decided issues immeasurably greater than the County Court was ever intended or desired to decide. It will lay the County Courts open to abuse
which is practically immeasurable. I do not desire to take up the time of the House. This is a legal question, but I think the House will probably be largely assisted in its decision by the fact that one would think, in a matter of this sort, which is really of great importance, that someone of considerable experience, say, one of the ex-Law Officers, would have been here to support it. I think that, if any of the ex-Law Officers were present, they would accept my suggestion that this Clause is impossible. I could, if the House desired it, argue the matter at greater length, but it is purely a legal matter, involving, in my view, a great deal of danger, and I hope that, unless the House desires a long and detailed legal argument, it will accept my view. Unless someone can come forward, such as the late Attorney-General or someone below the Gangway of great legal experience, to suggest any reason at all why this Clause should be accepted, I hope the House will reject it without further argument.

Captain TUDOR REES: As one of those responsible for this Clause, I regret that the Attorney-General has not seen his way to accept it, and for one, particularly resent the way in which he has dealt with it. I think myself, with great respect, that he has adumbrated a very dangerous departure in suggesting that, when a Clause has been put down by a humble back-bencher or two, who, while, perhaps, they have not had the great experience of the Courts that he has had, yet have had some experience, their experience should count for nothing, and that the representations which have been made to them, and in consequence of which this Clause has been put down, should count for nothing; and I regret that such slight consideration should be given to a very serious Clause, as the Attorney-General himself considers it to be. It is not so trivial as the Attorney-General seems to suppose. In my own experience, humble as it is, and less distinguished than that of the Attorney-General, I have come across large numbers of cases in which a Clause such as this, if introduced into the procedure of the County Courts, would have been of substantial assistance to those litigants who can ill afford to go to the expense of High Court proceedings.
For the benefit, if I may so with respect, of those who, perhaps, are not so fully conversant with the subject as those of us who have practised in the County Courts, may I say that the simple proposal is really this: To-day, if a man comes and damages any property of mine, I can then, if the claim does not exceed £100, start my proceedings in the County Court; but if that man, instead of actually doing damage, comes along and threatens damage, then I must go to the High Court. I should like to know from the Attorney-General, or anyone else on the Front Bench, why it is that in circumstances of that sort litigants—and it applies, I think, particularly to poor litigants—must incur the expense and delay of going to the High Court, when they could have their grievances redressed in a much cheaper and more expeditious way in the County Court. I will give a very homely illustration. It was brought to my notice, a day or two ago, that a certain hon. Member of this House desecrates the early morning hours by practising, and making weird, horrible nosies in so doing, on the cornet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I will not give his name, because later on he may attain musical distinction, though now he is a mere amateur. Another hon. Member lives in a fiat underneath, and has his mornings disturbed. If he regards that, as he does, as a positive nuisance, yet, inasmuch as no physical injury is caused, he is hound to take his action in the High Court; but if he could prove that any physical injury had resulted, or that he had suffered even 5s. worth of damage, then he would be able to start his proceedings in the County Court, and, perhaps, in a month, have the nuisance very suitably redressed.
That is only one simple illustration. I might, near my house, have a nuisance of some sort, but, unless I can show that I have suffered actual pecuniary loss or physical damage or injury, I must go to the High Court and invoke that cumbrous piece of machinery which is part of our legal system, and incur the additional expense involved. I urge upon the Attorney-General that the views I have expressed are not wholly my own views, that the Clause as put down does not represent idle thinking on the part of some hon. Members, but really represents the settled convictions of many practi-
tioners the High Court with whom I have had long conversations on the matter, and it is at their request—and I thoroughly agree with their suggestion—many of whom have had 20, 30, 40 years' experience in the County Court and the High Court, that this new Clause has been put down, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept it, I hope, in deference to the wishes of hon. Members interested in the subject, he will give more adequate reasons for rejecting it.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am not in any way learned in the law or qualified to offer any advice upon this matter, but I rise to offer a comment after listening to the Attorney-General's speech. I think in all parts of the House we may resent the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech when he disregards entirely the views of the lay Member in this House and he rests his defence of his position upon the fact that the Clause has not been supported by a single ex-Law Officer of the Crown. Had it been supported by all the ex-Law Officers of the Crown, in my judgment it would impose a greater obligation and a greater duty upon back bench Members to endeavour to keep the law of the country in harmony with the common sense of the people.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should like to say a word with reference to what has been said about resenting the speech I made. Does the House really think that is quite fair? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] May I say why it was that I did not give a more detailed explanation? The Bill has been before the House now practically three times a week for the last month. This Amendment has been upon the Paper. I have been through the Amendments with the greatest care in the hope of accepting some of them—and I propose to accept a good many—hoping we should save the time of the House. If I thought hon. Members wanted the Clause discussed, I would have discussed it further. If the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) would at least have the courtesy to listen, I shall be only too glad to explain it here. Neither am I seeking in the slightest degree to resent back benchers introducing a matter of this sort. This is purely a matter of law. Surely public opinion in all parts of the House can be guided in purely legal matters by legal views.

Mr. BANKS: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with a point which was not raised in his speech. The resentment was caused by the inference, which more persons than one drew on these benches, that no legal discussion in the House should assume any real importance, nor could we offer any valuable advice, nor could any Amendment be really urgently pressed unless it was supported by an ex-Law Officer of the Crown. Ex-Law Officers of the Crown and Law Officers of the Crown make mistakes. There are recent instances of Law Officers making grave blunders in the law. There are others making grave blunders in the temper of the House of Commons.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have adopted that tone. I hoped it would be present to the minds of hon. Members, from the way I accepted the first Amendment, as I propose to accept others, that my only object was to hope that they would be guided by the views I expressed in not pressing the Amendment.

Mr. BALFOUR: We should be perfectly prepared to accept any logical explanation which the Attorney-General can give why we should refuse the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged. I am only too glad to give it. I hope the House will accept the view that the only reason why I spoke so shortly was in the hope of saving time.

Mr. BALFOUR: Submit the reason now.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I propose to do so now the House has asked me. The reason is one which can be put shortly and which I think most hon. Members will agree is a sound one. The jurisdiction of the County Court is limited solely by financial limitations. The limitations of action in contract and in tort used to be lower than they are now. They are now increased, but they are all purely financial.
In cases of overwhelming importance, sometimes involving thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds, which were clearly matters for the determination of the High Court, a method was sought to be adopted by some practitioners to start action in a County Court
claiming an injunction. The injunction was claimed simply and solely in order that an action which should be tried in the High Court and which could not be tried in the County Court if the real facts had been brought before the Court, namely, that the issues involved both in amount and in importance largely exceeded anything that the County Court ever was intended to deal with, but because there was no claim for damages but merely a claim for injunction it was sought to obtain the jurisdiction of the Court. The County Courts universally held that that was wrong and that unless there was a claim which was within the jurisdiction of the County Courts, in the sense of being below the pecuniary limit, it could not be brought within the jurisdiction of the County Court. This Amendment is intended to affect that and to ever-rule the decision laid down, that in a case of whatever importance and whatever the magnitude of the financial issues involved, if a claim for damages or a claim for pecuniary compensation was not made, but it was merely a claim for injunction, then the County Court should have jurisdiction. That is why I say it is a most dangerous Amendment. I cannot help thinking that those who consider the Amendment will agree with me. I did not give a more lengthy explanation because I hoped that nobody would think it necessary to press the Amendment, but when I found that they did think it necessary to press it, I give this explanation

Sir K. WOOD: Manners!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very sorry that my hon. Friend has said that. I do not think that it was a question of manners. If he will excuse me, I think he thought that he had an opportunity of saying something which I might resent. If it is a question of manners, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he might think again before he makes an observation of that sort, which, if he said it where he and I practice—[Interruption.]

Mr. BALFOUR: We know nothing.

Sir H. CRAIG: Do not bring in these personal remarks.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Hon. Members opposite should not impute a desire on the part of other hon. Members
to be offensive. I did not intend to be offensive. All I can say is that whatever I have said was not intentionally offensive, and I ask hon. Members opposite, and I ask the House to accept that statement.

Mr. BANKS: I am most willing to withdraw any imputation against the Attorney-General, if he did not mean it offensively, but I must say that his phrase was most infelicitous. I entirely agree with his exposition of the law, and, in so doing, my opinion must be as good as the opinion of any ex-Law Officer of the Crown. What the Attorney-General said, by comparison, discredited every other hon. and learned Member, and to that extent it was infelicitous.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If it was infelicitous, perhaps the House will accept from me the assurance that it was quite unintentional.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I hope that, all Law Officers and ex-Law Officers do not fail in understanding that in this House law, as a rule, is out of place, unless there has to be a legal explanation. I hold the view very strongly that lawyers in this House ought to try to approach all questions as far as possible from a non-legal point of view. Approaching this question from a non-legal point, of view I agree with the explanation which the Attorney-General has given, and venture, not to embark on infelicitous or felicitous aspects of the controversy that has unfortunately arisen, but merely to say a word or two upon the Amendment. The essence of County Court jurisdiction is that it must be limited in amount or by some other means, so that the more important cases shall be left to the arbitrament of the High Court and only the less important cases dealt with in the County Court. For that reason the rule has been that actions for injunction and injunction alone should not be within the jurisdiction of the County Court.
The cause of that rule is simply that an action for injunction by itself is one which may involve a quite trivial stake or a stake of the utmost gravity either in money or in reputation. For that reason, because it is necessary to draw the line somehow, and because it is not practicable to draw a line in regard to injunctions by themselves, which would leave County Courts minor matters of
injunction while it would leave major matters to the High Court, the rule has obtained that injunctions by themselves shall not be within the jurisdiction of the County Court. In my experience that, as a rule, is rendered necessary in practice without being ideal in character. For that reason I ask the House to say that we shall not depart from that rule. I believe that all lawyers in the House who have experience in these matters share that view.
The House should bear in mind that where the cause is limited in amount by the claim for damages or money payments coming within the County Court jurisdiction an injunction can be asked for as ancillary, and in those cases the object of the Amendment is achieved in the existing practice. It is only where an injunction is asked for by itself, and, consequently, there is no means, if an injunction be is within the competence of the County Court, of limiting the claims for an injunction to those cases of minor importance, that, the rule obtains, as I think rightly, which excludes it from the County Court jurisdiction. Almost the most important auctions in many ways, with which our Courts have to deal, are those asking for injunctions, and I can assure the House from my own experience in these matters that it would be a most regrettable result if actions of tremendous importance were suddenly by this Amendment put within the jurisdiction of County Courts. For those reasons I beg the House to accept the explanation of the Attorney-General, with which I entirely agree.

Mr. JOWITT: I have grave, doubts as to whether I can be right, in view of the fact that I find myself in complete agreement with the last speaker and with the Attorney-General. Whether that be so or not, I think it right to state that I am in complete agreement with them, and for this reason: It seems to me that it is quite essential that this House should bear in mind that the County Court is and ought to be the poor man's Court. The County Court is full of work at the present time, with such cases as rent cases, and so on. From the point of view of the poor man at would be a most lamentable thing if the County Court were suddenly to be saddled with a large number of cases which, I know well, might take days. If cases of this sort
take days in the County Court it would mean that the man defending, say, a claim for possession or with a small judgment summons, would have his case postponed. The County Court ought not to be choked up with matters of this sort. Apart from that, it has always been considered that matters of very great importance ought to be decided in the High Courts. I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not propose to say anything with regard to the personal observations of the Attorney-General, because I think that the House is satisfied as to what exactly is the position. But I want to say something with regard to the merits of the proposition. I do not claim perfection for the drafting of this Clause, but there are certain merits which ought to appeal to those who sit behind the Attorney-General. The Amendment is designed to permit people who could not otherwise afford it to go to a County Court Judge and to get an injunction on some comparatively small matter without having to make a claim for compensation or damages. I should have thought that that was a proposition which would have appealed to the Attorney-General, and I should not have thought that it was a difficult matter upon which to frame an Amendment or a new Clause. As matters are now, any litigant who wants to claim only an injunction is bound to go to the High Court. It might be a very big matter or a very small matter. This new Clause is simply designed to save people the expense of law costs, and in the hope that sonic method might be suggested by which anyone who writs to get an injunction which in the ordinary way would not be dealt with in the High Court, could go to a County Court Judge and get it. What the difficulty can be, and how the Attorney-General can resist a suggestion of this kind, I do not know. This new Clause was moved and seconded in perfectly temperate terms, and we suggested to the Attorney-General that if the Clause were not in proper order there might be some other method which could be adopted in order to attain the ends which we desire. I suggested to the Attorney-General that, perhaps, when a litigant in the County Court made his claim for an injunction he should file an
affidavit saying that the matter in question referred, so far as the claim was concerned, only to a limited amount. That seemed to be a reasonable proposition.
I do not know why the Attorney-General wants to drive everyone into the High Court for an injunction. My suggestion is one which ought to appeal to most Members of the House and particularly Socialist Attorney-Generals. There are merits in this proposition. It is true that a very large number of important cases are decided on the question whether an injunction should be granted or not, but there are hundreds of trivial cases which go to the High Court to-day because litigants are driven there by the present procedure. This is an occasion on which we are deciding a matter affecting the practice of the County Courts and endeavouring to make matters simpler and easier for litigants, and I thought it a proper opportunity to consider a new Clause of this kind. I thought this as a matter to which any law officer of the Crown would have given some patient consideration and in which he would have seen there were some merits. I do not wish the House to think there are no merits in it, and I see opposite many hon. Members who are members of the Bar and who can testify to what I say. They know the needs which exist in cases of this kind; they know if a plaintiff wants to get an injunction to-day he has to go to the High Court even in the smallest matter, and may have a bill of costs of £50 or £60. Yet the Attorney-General says we cannot do anything; that there are grave and important matters, and that if you allow an injunction to be decided by the County Court Judge, the whole law of England will be upset.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting, but he is really not stating my attitude correctly. As a matter of fact, the County Court Judge has power to grant an injunction.

Sir K. WOOD: That is perfectly true where a claim for an injunction is made with a claim for damages, and that is why this proposed new Clause is designed in this way. I regret that the Attorney-General has not yet comprehended it. I say it should be perfectly proper for any plaintiff in this country to be able to go into the County Court for an injunction
in a small matter without making a claim for damages. If a man wants to claim an injunction against a neighbour he does not want to get money but merely to stop a nuisance or something of that kind, and it should be perfectly practicable for him to do so. Anyone who desires to see justice done to poor people in this country who cannot afford to go to the High Court, should give careful consideration to a suggestion of this kind.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I wish to identify myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I confess I do not follow the arguments of the Attorney-General. Apparently, the existing rule is intended to limit the jurisdiction of the County Court, but on what grounds I confess I cannot make out, and I am sorry that neither the Attorney-General nor the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) has given us very much enlightenment. The provision at present is that applications for injunction can only be made to the County Court provided there is a nominal claim for damages, and yet the Attorney-General suggests that the bringing of such proceedings without a nominal claim for damages is going to involve serious consequences. With regard to every other form of jurisdiction provided under the law there is a limit. With regard to claims for ejectment there is a limit as to property valued £50 a year, and if the Attorney-General has any sympathy with the Amendment, there is nothing to prevent him putting in a limitation that applications for injunctions without damages should apply only to property of a certain value. The hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepoels (Mr. Jowitt) seemed to imagine that these were matters which ought not to be dealt with in the County Court, but if an injunction is a legal remedy which is desirable for the owner of property of great magnitude, why is it not equally desirable for owners of small property? I put it to hon. Members below the Gangway, why, for instance, should an owner of small property not be entitled to go to the County Court and get an injunction against a big landowner to prevent interference with his light or with his rights of way or any other matter. The poor man is at present deprived of
the remedy which is continually sought by the rich man in the High Court, because anyone with experience in the County Court, as I had in my younger days, knows perfectly well that the costs in the County Court are sufficiently high in most cases to prevent a poor man from making an application to it, but the costs of an application for injunction in the High Court are so high that it is quite impossible for a poor man to thick of using that course of procedure. I would ask hon. Members to put pressure on the Attorney-General to give way and to extend the jurisdiction of the County Court so that these remedies, which are within the reach of the rich, should be put also within reach of the poor

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I feel some trepidation in rising to put forward a humble opinion which goes in a different direction from that advanced by so many exalted members of the higher branch of the profession to which belong, but, at the same time, I think the House has been rather over-estimating the importance both of the Amendment and of the resistance to it. The Attorney-General states that these matters of very great importance should not be decided in the County Court, out should go to the High Court, when, as a matter of fact, by the very simple expedient of putting in a claim for small damages, these very important matters, where damages are not the essence of the action, can be heard and started in the County Court at the present time. All that those who support the new Clause say is that it should not be necessary to put in the, small claim for damages when damages are not the essence of the action. That is all that is behind the Amendment. If there is this very great importance about these matters, the procedure up to the highest Court is not more difficult really because an application has been started in the County Court, because from the County Court it goes, I believe, to the Divisional Court and then to the Court of Appeal. I do not see any real reason why this Amendment should be resisted as strenuously as it has been, unless it be for a certain amount of resentment, or, I would rather say, of feeling that there is among certain people against actions being started in the County Court. The County Court is a great convenience to many humble people, who would never
start if they were told they had to begin in the High Court, and, therefore, I feel that there is no practical objection to this Amendment. I think there is much less in the arguments of the Attorney-General and of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) than they have made out, and that this is an Amendment which can be, supported by the House.

Captain BERKELEY: I find it very difficult to understand why the Attorney-General resists this Amendment. I should have thought he would have welcomed it and hurriedly got it passed into law, and that thereupon either he or some other accredited legal representative of the Government would have hurried off to the County Court at Woolwich and taken out a series of injunctions against the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to prevent him putting down Amendments on the Order Paper. Seriously, however, the protagonists of the Attorney-General's attitude, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt), have all referred to the County Court as being the poor man's Court, and they do not seem to have observed how illogical it is to point to the County Court as being the poor man's Court, if you deprive the poor man of the opportunity of taking his injunction proceedings in that Court, which you have created for the purpose of cheapening litigation. As to the argument that proceedings involving issues of great gravity would be brought into the County Court, surely that would not arise, because there exists, unless I am very much misinformed, in the law, procedure for removing actions from lower Courts to higher Courts, and it surely would not pass the wit of the Law Officers of the Crown to devise words by which it could be made perfectly plain that, if there were an abuse of this power and the kind of clever practice to which the Attorney-General referred, of bringing serious issues into the County Court for obscure purposes, in such cases there should be power to apply to the High Court for an order removing the course of action from the County Court to the High Court. I very much hope that the Movers of this Amendment will not be led away by the appeals which have been addressed to them by the higher ranks of the legal fraternity, and
that they will press this Amendment to a Division and will be supported in the Lobby.

Major MOULTON: In view of the discussion, I think the House ought to hesitate before accepting this proposal. One big injunction case might shut out a hundred poor litigants who want to have their cases dealt with. I quite agree that the present law wants some modification, but not in the direction that injunctions at large may be applied for. The hon. Member seems to be under an utter misapprehension with regard to the power of removing cases from the County Court. A case cannot be removed on the ground that it is important or unimportant, but merely on the ground that the County Court has no jurisdiction. I do ask the House to reject this proposal.

Mr. HINDLE: All the legal Members who have spoken in favour of or against this Amendment can be divided very definitely into two classes. All the legal Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment have belonged to the lower branch of the profession, and, without exception, all the legal Members of the House who have spoken in favour of the Bill have belonged to the higher branch. It is not for me to make any invidious distinction between those two, but I may say that, after all, it is the lower branch who are more in touch with the actual needs of the people as a whole. The higher branch, by the etiquette of their own profession, are not allowed to come into contact with the actual clients, and it is the lower branch who have the greater proportion of cases in the County Court. I myself was met by this very difficulty within the last two months, and I can conceive many cases where such difficulties arise. The Attorney-General said quite properly that is important that cases involving large issues should go to the High Court, but at the present time these very cases can go to the County Court. If there is a case where an injunction is required, and a small amount of actual pecuniary damage has already been incurred, it is open to that litigant to go to the County Court, although the issue involved in the claim for an injunction is of enormous importance. Therefore, I cannot see why the Attorney-General should be so obdurate on this matter. His arguments seemed to be that the House,
in passing an Amendment, was forcing all claims to go into the County Court. It is nothing of the sort. It is merely permissive. If the right hon. Gentlemen of the higher branch were called upon to advise a client in a case as to whether he should go into the High Court or take the case into the County Court, they would consider the purse of their client, and also the importance of the case. It is impossible, to conceive of a really important case for an injunction alone being put before the County Court in the

first instance. The County Court is a poor man's Court. There are plenty of cases where a poor man wants an injunction alone, and the Attorney-General and the Government ought to be able to draft a form of words which would enable him to go to the County Court, and yet maintain the jurisdiction of the High Court intact.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 208.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Raine, W.


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Foot, Isaac
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Alstead, R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, J. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Robinson, W E. (Burslem)


Brass, Captain W.
Hillary, A. E.
Royle C.


Burman, J. B.
Hindle, F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Savery, S. S.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jephcott, A. R.
Sinclair, Col. N. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Starmer, Sir Charles


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kedward, R. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Dawson, Sir Philip
Laverack, F. J.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tattersall, J. L.


Dixey, A. C.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Dixon, Herbert
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Waddington, R.


Dodds, S. R.
Moles, Thomas
Weston, John Wakefield


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Mond, H.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Duckworth, John
Morse, W. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph



Ednam, Viscount
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


England, Colonel A.
Owen, Major G
Sr. Kingsley Wood and Captain




Tudor Rees.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dickson, T.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dukes, C.
Hennessy, Major, J. R. G.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duncan, C.
Hirst, G. H.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hobhouse, A. L.


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hodges, Frank


Banton, G.
Egan, W. H.
Hoffman, P. C.


Barclay, R. Noton
Elliot, Walter E.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Barnes, A.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Falconer, J.
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie


Batey, Joseph
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Brondfield, Margaret
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Hudson, J. H.


Bonwick, A.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Broad, F. A.
Gillett, George M.
Jewson, Dorothea


Bromfield, William
Gosling, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Buckle, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Greenall, T.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Cassels, J. D.
Grundy, T. W.
Kennedy, T.


Clarke, A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth
Kenyon, Barnet


Climie, R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
King Captain Henry Douglas


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Kirkwood, D.


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Hardie, George D.
Lansbury, George


Cope, Major William
Harney, E. A.
Law, A.


Costello, L. W. J.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lawson, John James


Crittall, V. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Leach, W.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Lee, F.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Haycock, A. W.
Lessing, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Loverseed, J. F.


Lowth, T.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McCrae, Sir George
Raffan, P. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


M'Entee, V. L.
Raynes, W. R.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Mackinder, W.
Rea, W. Russell
Thurtle, E.


McLean, Major A.
Richards, R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcom




Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ritson, J.
Turner, Ben


March, S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Marley, James
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Varley, Frank B.


Martin, W.H. (Dumbarton)
Romeril, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Rose, Frank H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Maxton, James
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Middleton, G.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mills, J. E.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Montague, Frederick
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Morel, E. D.
Scurr, John
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Morris, R. H.
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shepperson, E. W.
Westwood, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sherwood, George Henry
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)
Whiteley, W.


Muir, John W
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wignall, James


Murray, Robert
Smillie, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)


Nichol, Robert
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Nixon, H.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


O'Grady, Captain James
Spence, R.
Windsor, Walter


Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stephen, Campbell
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Palmer, E. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wright, W.


Perring, William George
Stranger, Innes Harold
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Phillipps, Vivian
Sturrock, J. Leng
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Pielou, D. P.
Sullivan, J.



Ponsonby, Arthur
Sunlight, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Warne.


Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Fees in workmen's compensation proceedings.)

(1) No Court fee shall be payable by the workman in respect of proceedings in a Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1960.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the preceding sub-section the words "without fee," in paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule to the said Act and paragraph (13) of the said Schedule shall cease to have effect.—[Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am willing to accept this proposed new Clause.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment, qualification, etc., of registrars of County Courts and provision as to high bailiffs.)

Captain REES: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after the word "the," to insert the words
judge of that Court subject to the approval of the.
I do not know whether the Attorney-General will be as accommodating in respect to this Amendment as he was in respect to the last. In explaining why the Amendment is necessary, let me say that for the last 50 or 60 years the appointment of registrars in the County Court has been in the hands of the Judge of the Court. It is now proposed to take the power away from the County Court Judges and to confer it in the Lord Chancellor. We have had no reason up to now why the powers should be so transferred from a Judge who knows the local practitioners and the men who are qualified, and to transfer the powers to the Lord Chancellor, who himself will know nothing at all about the local conditions or about the qualifications of any of the aspirants for the position of registrar. I would wish to say nothing offensive to hon. Members above the Gangway, but if they were on the other side of the House, and a Conservative Government in office had brought forward a proposal of this sort I can imagine all sorts of extravagant speeches being made in regard to the policy of the Government in proposing such a violent change. I suggest that a proposal of this sort does not savour very much of democracy. I hope hon. Members above the Gangway will seriously consider this question. Assume, then, that a
registrarship falls vacant in the South or the North of England.
For the last 40 years the custom has been for the County Court Judge to make the appointment, but under this Bill the Lord Chancellor himself, or in practice one of his secretaries sitting in a room in the House of Lords, will be asked to make the appointment. I should have thought that in order to secure the best man the local County Court Judge, who knows practically every person in the district capable of filling the post, would have been the person most qualified to make the appointment. For some reason, however, this power is to be transferred to the Lord Chancellor. My fear is that in an event of that sort, and the Lord Chancellor having to make the appointment, it will lead to a good deal of political wire-pulling. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am surprised my hon. Friends think that when an appointment is to be made the people interested would not resort to wire-pulling. I am not saying this because there is a Labour Government in power. In a week or two they may not be in power and the Liberals may be in power.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope hon. Members will not continue to interrupt. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will keep to the point.

Captain REES: If this Bill pass without any Amendment, it will lead to certain wire-pulling and manœuvring for these appointments. A local man might be well qualified for the post, and he may be passed over because of pressure brought to bear on some secretary in the House of Lords.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I think it is possible to look at this from a different point of view. I think it is an entirely gratuitous Amendment—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to second the Amendment?

Sir G. BUTLER: No, Sir.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
If I may just add a word or two to the remarks that have been made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, I venture to suggest to the House that it would be
a desirable thing if the local Judges were permitted to make these appointments, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. That would have this additional advantage, that the Lord Chancellor could veto any of these appointments. If the County Court judge made an unsuitable suggestion, the Lord Chancellor could refuse to adopt it. I venture to suggest to the Attorney-General that this Amendment has many advantages. It would bring a certain amount of local opinion to bear upon appointments of this kind, which would not be made in any improper way, but by the Judge of the local Court. I venture to suggest that there is a certain amount of danger in having these appointments, of which there will be a very large number, made by the Lord Chancellor; because I suppose that that means in fact that these appointments will be made to a very large extent by officials in London. I think there is a good deal to be said for allowing the Judge of the Court, who has to work daily with the officers who are appointed, at any rate to make the nomination, and I think that that would be an improvement on the Clause now in the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to say I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hone I shall be able to put my reasons clearly and shortly. There are two points. The main point is this: In the present Bill there is a complete change in the appointment of these registrars, the effect of which is very far-reaching, and one which I think is eminently acceptable to them. The idea is that they shall all be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with this result, that, in future, any responsibility which may fall upon them owing to any of the acts of any of their under-officials will, for the first time, be a matter for defence by the State. The Lord Chancellor will appoint them, they will be public officials, and, just as in the case of other public officials, their defence in respect of any action which may be brought against them will be undertaken by the country. In these circumstances, it is essential that, inasmuch as it is the Government, or rather, the country that is to undertake the defence of all the registrars, the appointments should be in the hands equally of those who are responsible for the ultimate result, whatever it may be.
It is obviously desired by all the registrars that this change should be made, and of course it is quite obvious that that could not be effectively done if the appointment of these men were left in the hands of anyone else, even of the Judges of the Courts. That is one of the most important grounds upon which this Amendment cannot be accepted. Another, which is in some ways as important, though it is entirely different, is that, as I think the House will probably agree, it is very undesirable that the appointment of these officers, who, of course, have judicial functions to exercise, amongst other things, should be made in the districts in which the registrars practice, and by another officer of the same Court—that the Judge should really appoint the person who also sits as a Judge in the same Court. For these two reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Payment of registrars and high bailiffs.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end to insert the words
Provided that no registrar or high bailiff appointed before the passing of this Act shall be paid a less salary than his net salary and remuneration for the year ending the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, without the consent of such registrar of high bailiff.
The Clause is as follows:
Every registrar and every high bailiff of a Court shall be paid such salary, to be either exclusive of the remuneration of any officers of the Court and of any other expenses of his office or not, as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time with the consent of the Treasury direct, and, where the salary is inclusive of and such remuneration or expenses as aforesaid, the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit and subject to the consent of the Treasury, specify what part of that salary is applicable to the payment of the said remuneration or expenses.
The hon. Members who have put down this Amendment, I think desire, if it is necessary, that those registrars and high bailiffs, who are appointed before the passing of the Act shall not suffer so far as their remuneration is concerned. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether he thinks this is necessary or not

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
Few people in the land deserve better of the House and the country than those my hon. Friend has mentioned. They have done their work well and efficiently and they should receive their remuneration on the same basis.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I am quite unable to accept the Amendment. I am sorry that when the Second Reading was moved it was not made more clear. I hoped everyone understood the reasons why I could not accept it. The Bill has been the subject of very careful, intricate and delicate negotiations between the Treasury, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Association of Registrars. It is as the result of those negotiations, that the Bill has been brought into being. They are passionately anxious that it should pass in this form. The Association of Registrars have agreed to the terms upon which they are to be remunerated. I have not heard of one dissentient voice in regard to this agreement. The Association of Registrars still want it to be carried out in the form in which it has been agreed, and I cannot see why it should be altered. If there is a change in the agreement affecting one party, it will go far to invalidate the agreement with the others. It will be impossible for this Bill to pass if we go to the parties with whom we have made the agreement and say, "We have altered the agreement in a very material form." If this Amendment were carried, I am informed by the Lord Chancellor's Department that it would probably affect all the agreements and would not only further delay the Bill but possibly result in the Bill not passing. What on earth is the object of this Amendment I cannot see. I cannot believe that the hon. Members who moved and seconded it are aware that there is this binding agreement with the Association of Registrars. I have heard that there is one Gentleman who has left the Association. Whether or not he has had anything to do with this matter I cannot say. I hope the hon. Members will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not select the next three Amendments on the Paper.

CLAUSE 5.—(Court service to be pensionable.)

Mr. HOPE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out from the beginning thereof to the end of the Sub-section.
I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of officials of the County Court who are in great doubt and anxiety as to their future position. This Clause appears to take away in the latter part what it gives in the first. In the first part it seems to count service before the commencement of the Bill for pension purposes, but, in the latter part of the Clause, that appears to be entirely nullified, except in so far as the Treasury may in any case direct. Some officials who have had long service in the County Courts fear that in a year or two they may have to retire, and that they will only get pensions based on two or three years' service, although the work they will be doing will be of the same character as that which they have been doing before. I trust it is not the intention of the Government to do that which is causing anxiety to these men.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot accept this Amendment. It is not provided that service prior to this Bill shall count for pension. There is nothing in the Bill which gives any such right. It makes it quite plain that it is not the intention of the Treasury to count towards pension years of service prior to the passing of the Bill. The reason for that is that in no case of civil servants is the service prior to the date at which the pension is given taken into account. No prior pension is ever granted. If that were to be done in the case of the County Court officials, there is no reason why it should not be done in the case of every person who benefits by being made a member of the Civil Service. It would be impossible for the Treasury to accede to that.

Mr. HOPE: In certain cases, the Treasury do allow prior service to count.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All it does is, if the Treasury see fit to make an exception in any particular case, to empower the Treasury to do so. Here again we come back to the same position. The agreement to which the last speaker referred was with the Registrars. The other agreement is with these other persons. They are satisfied with the
agreement. They are even more passionately anxious that this Bill should pass into law than the Registrars, and if we have to vary the agreement with them the Bill would not pass and they would be the first persons to raise their hands in horror if anything were done to upset the agreement.

Sir K. WOOD: Though, as the Attorney-General has said, this arrangement and the other arrangement under Clause 4 have been the result of a bargain between the various associations, and no Member desires to disturb it, yet a very large number of the older officers have communicated with me, and I dare say with the right hon. Gentleman who raised the question, and they feel, having regard to the very small amount provided for them under this arrangement, that something should be done to supplement it. I have received several letters from officers in various courts who have served 30, 40, and in one case 45 years, and they get very little, if anything, under the arrangement that is being made, and the suggestion made on their behalf is that something should be done for them. No one wants to disturb the arrangement that has been made with respect to the great body of the men concerned, but there is a case for something being done in the case of these older servants, and I hope that the Attorney-General will not dismiss that aspect of the matter entirely from his mind.

Amendment negatived

CLAUSE 6.—(Fees in workmen's compensation proceedings)

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short title interpretation, extent and repeal.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move in page 9, line 23, to leave out the word "Councillors" and to insert instead thereof the word "Commons".

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AUXILIARY AIR FORCE AND AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL [Lords].

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th June].

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making provision with respect to leave of absence from India of the Governor-General, Commander-in-Chief, and Governors and members of Executive Councils, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Revenues of India of any salaries, leave allowances, and travelling or other expenses which may become payable under such Act.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): It is essential that I say a word or two about this Resolution. It relates to a Bill which was given a Second Reading the other evening, and was debated at some length in another place. The Bill is intended to remove an anomaly that has existed for 159 years. Under the present law it is impossible either for the Viceroy or for the Commander-in-Chief to leave India for Europe during their period of service. The Bill will remove that anomaly. When either for reasons of health or for matters of State the Viceroy leaves India temporarily, his place will be taken by another person. The Money Resolution will cover the expense involved, which will come out of the revenues of India.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can we have some information as to the rate of leave allowance to be drawn by these officers when on leave? I see in the Bill that the allowances are to be drawn up by the Secretary of State in Council. What is to be the leave allowance of those officers who come home on urgent private affairs? Are they to be on a different footing from those who come home in the ordinary course of leave or on public business?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I notice that the Bill applies merely to viceroys, officers and governors, and in fact to everyone except the poor people with whom we are mostly concerned. Does the Under-Secretary intend to bring in a Bill to give the same advantages to private soldiers in India? It seems to me that the House is prepared to discuss questions about the pay of officers when they get leave for private business, but on the other hand we can never get a man home from the Army even on compassionate grounds. I cannot understand why, in a so-called democratic community, we should set up a certain standard for officers and not apply it to privates, whose business might be just as important as that of anyone else. We have been discussing to-day and for many days past how to raise money to extend schemes of social reform. May I suggest that it might be well to give these generals and governors-general permanent leave of absence, bring them home and not allow them to go back. It might be better for India and for us. I am new to Parliamentary procedure and I may not properly appreciate this Resolution, but I cannot see the justice of a proposal which gives special privileges to officers but does not extend the same privileges to the rank and file. I expected something different from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who, though an individualist of individualists, has always been known as a democrat of democrats. In my younger Socialist days I was constantly lectured by him, because my idea of Socialism did not give enough freedom to the individual. Now he is here supporting a proposal to give to the officer or the governor-general a right which is withheld from the private soldier. He cannot defend it and I hope, at least, to have an assurance from him that a similar proposal will be introduced applicable to the private soldier in India however humble his rank and station. I feel sure my appeal will not fall on deaf ears.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums not exceeding in the whole seventeen million pounds, as are required for the further development of the telephonic system and to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof to the Consolidated Fund, and to provide for the payment of the terminable annuities or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer bonds out of moneys provided by Parliament for Post Office services or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund; and
(2) to make provision with respect to the application of sums arising from the sale of any property acquired for the purposes of the telephonic system."—(King' s Recommendation Signified.)

Mr. HARTSHORN: The Committee will be aware that the whole of the capital required for the extension of the telephone system is borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners on the authority of periodical Acts of Parliament, known as Telegraph [Money] Acts. They authorise the Treasury to pass the programme submitted by the Post Office engineering staff and to authorise the carrying of this programme into effect. Once Parliament has authorised, by the passing of these Money Acts, the expenditure of certain sums of money, the Post Office does not thereafter come to Parliament to get sanction for any of its subsequent proposals, but goes for authority and sanction to the Treasury. This Resolution is put down as a Telegraph [Money] Resolution, but the whole of the money which we are asking Parliament to sanction by this Resolution will be spent on telephones, and none of it on telegraphs. Up to date, the total amount of capital expended on the telephone system is approximately £68,000,000, and of that sum £25,500,000 has already been repaid. The loans which are obtained from the National Debt Commissioners are repaid by means of instalments spread over 20 years. The last Money Act that was obtained was in 1922, and that Act authorises the raising of £15,000,000, £13,500,000 of which had been expended by the 30th of last. April, and the remaining £1,500,000 will have been expended by the end of this
month, and it is therefore necessary, it the telephone development of this country is to be proceeded with, that a new Act should be obtained during the present month.
This Resolution is an essential preliminary to the introduction of a Bill asking for authority to borrow £17,000,000, which is the amount that if is estimated will be required to meet the need of the next two years. The sum authorised by the Treasury for the current year, 1924–25, amounts to £8,200,000. We have £2,217,000 of that from the previous Act, and a further £6,000,000 will be required in the current year in order to carry out the programme. If this £17,000,000 is passed, £6,000,000 of it, as I have already said, will be expended daring the current year, and the remaining £11,000,000 is the amount estimated to carry us on till about June or July of 1926. The whole of this capital expenditure is, of course, strictly confined to the extension of the system. All the cost of maintenance, and the renewal of worn-out plant, is borne on the Post Office Estimates, and charged against revenue. The capital expenditure on the telephones in the past, and the demands for expenditure in the future, which will be equally heavy, and probably heavier, may appear somewhat alarming, but I think it is necessary, in considering this Resolution, to bear two or three rather important considerations in mind First of all there is the fact that telephone development in this country is very far behind that of America and most of the Continental countries. According to the latest available figures in the United States there is one telephone to every seven persons; in Canada, one to every nine; in Denmark, one to every 12; in Germany, one to every 29; and in Great Britain, one to every 38. Obviously, therefore, there is a large field for expansion in this country. The next consideration is that if plant is not provided in sufficient quantity it is not possible to comply with the orders which come in. Further, if the existing lines become congested, the quality of the service immediately deteriorates. That is the real reason why we had such a defective telephone service during the years succeeding the War. Development during the War was suspended, and the lines became congested, with the result that we had a very inferior service; but the
very considerable sums which have been put into the service during the last four or five years have very considerably improved that service, and it is only by continually adding to the capital expenditure that we can hope to maintain anything like an efficient service.
The Committee will be pleased to know that the financial position of the telephone service is improving year by year. For a number of years we had very heavy deficits on the service. During 1919–20 there was a deficit of, roughly speaking, £2,000,000, and in 1920–21 there was a deficit of £4,750,000. There was then a revision of the telephone rates, and from then on there has been a surplus. When that revision took place it was agreed, and the pledge was given, that as the deficit was wiped out, and surpluses were realised, prices should be brought down. I may say that during the last two years there have been reductions in prices amounting in the aggregate to £3,500,000. The programme which has been agreed to for 1924–25 may be summed up as follows: It is proposed to spend, in round figures, £2,800,000 on the trunk lines. That compares with £2,800,000 spent last year, and £2,600,000 the previous year. A very great development is taking place in the construction and the laying of underground cables. I would just like to give one illustration of the improvement and greater efficiency that results from the laying of these cables. In connection with the London-Manchester cable we had, before it was laid, 1,300 calls a day. Since it was laid we have had 2,300. Before the cable was laid it took 25 minutes to get a call; under the cable system the average is eight minutes. We have a number of other cables already completed and others in course of construction. I see that hon. Members are anxious to go to a vote, but I shall be very pleased to give further details to them. I can assure the Committee that to complete the schemes we have begun, it is necessary to have this Resolution passed and authority given for raising and spending the money.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I have no intention of obstructing business, but we hear so seldom the voice of the Postmaster-General that we have pleasure in listening to him. We are very thankful to him for showing us the spirit of progress which animates the Post Office, but I was surprised to hear from
his supporters behind him that they intended to vote a large sum of money without any indication of vote was going to be done with it. We thank him very much for telling us what the policy of the Post Office was, but I would like to ask how the question of automatic exchanges is going on, because it is perhaps beneficial to have a big capital expenditure for machinery which will eventually be a saving. I am also glad to think that the unsightly overhead lines which disfigure the country in every direction are soon to disappear in favour of the underground system. I hope before we get this actual Vote the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether there is any possibility of the automatic exchanges spreading.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: If this Resolution be carried—and I sincerely hope it will be—I should like to ask the Postmaster-General if he will consider the need of telephonic communication with Holy Island. It is really a most urgent need, and perhaps he will give me a promise to consider it.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I support the hon. Lady about Holy Island, where I have dwelt. I congratulate the Post-master-General on the telephone surplus. He stated that the money could be raised by terminable annuities, but the Resolution says it can also be raised by the issue of Exchequer Bonds. I should like to know whether it is proposed to issue Exchequer Bonds that will add to the National Debt in a different way from terminable annuities. I note that the capital expenditure is stated at £69,000,000. How much of that has been repaid? In the Memorandum it is stated that this £17,000,000 will be repaid. How much has been repaid up to now? Further, will this expenditure mean cheaper telephones, especially in the rural districts? What will be done for Holy Island? Are these contracts let out to private enterprise, or is the work done directly by the Post Office engineering department as a commercial concern? I would like an answer to these questions.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: The capital expenditure up to date, we are told, has been £69,000,000. This further expenditure represents an addition of 25 per cent. to that capital expenditure. Is that going to increase the revenue by 25 per cent. Will the number of telephone subscribers be increased by 25 per cent., or is the new money to be devoted to merely
improving the present system, without any corresponding increase in revenue or in the number of subscribers? Is any provision made for writing off the expenditure on existing exchanges that are to be replaced, supposing, of course, it is proposed to rebuild any existing exchanges? The House has shown that at this late hour it is not in favour of any lengthy explanation by the Postmaster-General, but I think we ought to be told a little more as to what this expenditure involves and whether it will be a revenue-producing expenditure.

12 M.

Major MOULTON: I should like to put in an appeal for greater telephonic facilities for the agricultural parts of England. It is desirable that the farmers should carry on like ordinary business men, and they ask for facilities in connection with their farms so as to limit the number of visits they need to pay. They get very few facilities. I should like to see the Post Office take a step in advance, for once they establish themselves in a district new subscribers would come along. I trust, for the sake of agriculture, that the right hon. Gentleman will do something—he may do a great deal—to help the farmers in a way of which the Minister of Agriculture would approve.

Mr. REMER: Does the money in this Resolution include money for the erection of a new post office at Macclesfield? We have been promised consideration of this matter several times.

Mr. HARTSHORN: If I had made the statement I intended to make when I first got up I probably would have saved a good many of the questions now put. As to Macclesfield, I have already stated that the whole of this money will be spent upon telephone development, and nothing else.

Mr. REMER: But I include the telephone facilities there as well as the general building.

Mr. HARTSHORN: That is not in the Vote at all. What we have done generally has resulted in increased business. There has been an increase in the number of telephones in this country of 190,000, the total number now in use being 1,460,000. During the year the trunk calls have been increased by 11,000,000—from 59,000,000 to 70,000,000—a record increased percentage in the history of the service. This has been,
no doubt, very largely due to the material improvement, as a result of the very substantial expenditure that has taken place. There has been an increase of from 700,000,000 to 800,000,000 local calls in the year. There is ample evidence to show that very material results are accruing from the expenditure that is being put into the telephone system I have been asked how much of the £69,000,000 has been repaid. I have, I think, already stated it, but it is about £25,500,000.
As to automatic exchanges, they are on the increase at Southampton, Dundee and various other places, and are in various stages of progress at Sheffield, Brighton, York, Glasgow, Hanley, etc. So far as London is concerned, it is intended ultimately to work the whole system by automatics. But the problem of the automatic system in London appears to be very great indeed. Already we have over 100 separate exchanges with over 400,000 telephones working in London, and it is estimated that within 10 years we may have 1,000,000 telephones. When the whole of that huge mass of organisation and work is going on one can realise what a huge engineering problem it is to bring it to fruition. The system is making rapid progress, and in the course of a few years we hope that a number of additional exchanges will be brought into existence. As far as the initial expense is concerned the plant is more expensive than under the manual system, but the reduced running cost more than compensates for the initial outlay. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) I will promise to go very carefully into the request she made in reference to telephone communication with Holy Island and see if something can be done.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday Evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the Hoare, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.